<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_09_2028245</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T Moves Closer To Usage-Based Fees For Data</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260349680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"AT&amp;T has moved closer to <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142012/AT\_T\_moves\_closer\_to\_usage\_based\_fees\_for\_data">charging special usage fees to heavy data users, including those with iPhones and other smartphones</a>. Ralph de la Vega, CEO of AT&amp;T Mobility and Consumer Markets,  came close on Wednesday to warning about some kind of use-based pricing while speaking at a UBS conference. 'The first thing we need to do is educate customers about what represents a megabyte of data and...we're improving systems to give them real-time information about their data usage,' he said. 'Longer term, there's got to be some sort of pricing scheme that addresses the [heavy] users.' AT&amp;T has found that only 3\% of its smartphone users &mdash; primarily iPhone owners &mdash; are responsible for 40\% of total data usage, largely for video and audio, de la Vega said. Educating that group about how much they are using could change that, as AT&amp;T has found by informing wired Internet customers of such patterns. De la Vega's comments on data use were <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139151/AT\_T\_Wireless\_CEO\_Hints\_at\_Managing\_iPhone\_Data\_Usage">previewed in a keynote he gave in October at the CTIA</a>, but he went beyond those comments on Wednesday: 'We are going to make sure incentives are in place to reduce or modify [data]uses so they don't crowd out others in the same cell sites.' Focus groups have been formed at AT&amp;T to figure out how to proceed."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " AT&amp;T has moved closer to charging special usage fees to heavy data users , including those with iPhones and other smartphones .
Ralph de la Vega , CEO of AT&amp;T Mobility and Consumer Markets , came close on Wednesday to warning about some kind of use-based pricing while speaking at a UBS conference .
'The first thing we need to do is educate customers about what represents a megabyte of data and...we 're improving systems to give them real-time information about their data usage, ' he said .
'Longer term , there 's got to be some sort of pricing scheme that addresses the [ heavy ] users .
' AT&amp;T has found that only 3 \ % of its smartphone users    primarily iPhone owners    are responsible for 40 \ % of total data usage , largely for video and audio , de la Vega said .
Educating that group about how much they are using could change that , as AT&amp;T has found by informing wired Internet customers of such patterns .
De la Vega 's comments on data use were previewed in a keynote he gave in October at the CTIA , but he went beyond those comments on Wednesday : 'We are going to make sure incentives are in place to reduce or modify [ data ] uses so they do n't crowd out others in the same cell sites .
' Focus groups have been formed at AT&amp;T to figure out how to proceed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "AT&amp;T has moved closer to charging special usage fees to heavy data users, including those with iPhones and other smartphones.
Ralph de la Vega, CEO of AT&amp;T Mobility and Consumer Markets,  came close on Wednesday to warning about some kind of use-based pricing while speaking at a UBS conference.
'The first thing we need to do is educate customers about what represents a megabyte of data and...we're improving systems to give them real-time information about their data usage,' he said.
'Longer term, there's got to be some sort of pricing scheme that addresses the [heavy] users.
' AT&amp;T has found that only 3\% of its smartphone users — primarily iPhone owners — are responsible for 40\% of total data usage, largely for video and audio, de la Vega said.
Educating that group about how much they are using could change that, as AT&amp;T has found by informing wired Internet customers of such patterns.
De la Vega's comments on data use were previewed in a keynote he gave in October at the CTIA, but he went beyond those comments on Wednesday: 'We are going to make sure incentives are in place to reduce or modify [data]uses so they don't crowd out others in the same cell sites.
' Focus groups have been formed at AT&amp;T to figure out how to proceed.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381574</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong story label</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1259578380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In all seriousness, what are they going to do when they are no longer the exclusive Jesus phone provider?</i></p><p>Raise their rates.  People will leave AT&amp;T (I live in an area with good AT&amp;T service so I won't be leaving) and go to some other provider with the iPhone.  The loss of $80/month/iPhone + their possible per MB increase will cripple them and the $60 family plan will be an extra $25 per device, 50 cents per text or $20 for unlimited texting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In all seriousness , what are they going to do when they are no longer the exclusive Jesus phone provider ? Raise their rates .
People will leave AT&amp;T ( I live in an area with good AT&amp;T service so I wo n't be leaving ) and go to some other provider with the iPhone .
The loss of $ 80/month/iPhone + their possible per MB increase will cripple them and the $ 60 family plan will be an extra $ 25 per device , 50 cents per text or $ 20 for unlimited texting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all seriousness, what are they going to do when they are no longer the exclusive Jesus phone provider?Raise their rates.
People will leave AT&amp;T (I live in an area with good AT&amp;T service so I won't be leaving) and go to some other provider with the iPhone.
The loss of $80/month/iPhone + their possible per MB increase will cripple them and the $60 family plan will be an extra $25 per device, 50 cents per text or $20 for unlimited texting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381492</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>PrescriptionWarning</author>
	<datestamp>1259578080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I currently have a Palm Centro with AT&amp;T and decided not to pay for the "unlimited" data plan which is about $30 per month I believe.

<br> <br>However, I have on a couple occasions needed to use it to look up directions on google maps while in my parked car.  A few minutes usage, and no more than about 1/2 a MB later I find a $5 charge added.  Thats $10 per MB... RIP-OFF!  If they did something like $10 per GB I'd be perfectly fine with that, since I wouldn't use the thing for video and music anyway, but to be able to occasionally check email or reviews on products before I purchase them that would be a reasonable amount.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I currently have a Palm Centro with AT&amp;T and decided not to pay for the " unlimited " data plan which is about $ 30 per month I believe .
However , I have on a couple occasions needed to use it to look up directions on google maps while in my parked car .
A few minutes usage , and no more than about 1/2 a MB later I find a $ 5 charge added .
Thats $ 10 per MB... RIP-OFF ! If they did something like $ 10 per GB I 'd be perfectly fine with that , since I would n't use the thing for video and music anyway , but to be able to occasionally check email or reviews on products before I purchase them that would be a reasonable amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I currently have a Palm Centro with AT&amp;T and decided not to pay for the "unlimited" data plan which is about $30 per month I believe.
However, I have on a couple occasions needed to use it to look up directions on google maps while in my parked car.
A few minutes usage, and no more than about 1/2 a MB later I find a $5 charge added.
Thats $10 per MB... RIP-OFF!  If they did something like $10 per GB I'd be perfectly fine with that, since I wouldn't use the thing for video and music anyway, but to be able to occasionally check email or reviews on products before I purchase them that would be a reasonable amount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381132</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous Psychopath</author>
	<datestamp>1259576580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a business opportunity for other ISPs to offer unlimited access and compete with these greedy assholes.</p></div><p>How are you defining "greedy"? I haven't read their financial statements but I doubt their profit margins are out of line with the rest of their industry. Seems like lately a company is automatically labeled "greedy" if they expect any profit at all. So what's greed? Is it 5\% margin? 10\%? 25\%? Where's the line?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a business opportunity for other ISPs to offer unlimited access and compete with these greedy assholes.How are you defining " greedy " ?
I have n't read their financial statements but I doubt their profit margins are out of line with the rest of their industry .
Seems like lately a company is automatically labeled " greedy " if they expect any profit at all .
So what 's greed ?
Is it 5 \ % margin ?
10 \ % ? 25 \ % ?
Where 's the line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a business opportunity for other ISPs to offer unlimited access and compete with these greedy assholes.How are you defining "greedy"?
I haven't read their financial statements but I doubt their profit margins are out of line with the rest of their industry.
Seems like lately a company is automatically labeled "greedy" if they expect any profit at all.
So what's greed?
Is it 5\% margin?
10\%? 25\%?
Where's the line?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30396026</id>
	<title>I pay way too much.</title>
	<author>Archeopteryx</author>
	<datestamp>1260446520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the service is terrible.</p><p>OK, you don't want me?  The second I can get out of my contract I am buying a Droid and you won't ever have to worry about me overpaying for the 300 MB I use in the average month.</p><p>Jerks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the service is terrible.OK , you do n't want me ?
The second I can get out of my contract I am buying a Droid and you wo n't ever have to worry about me overpaying for the 300 MB I use in the average month.Jerks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the service is terrible.OK, you don't want me?
The second I can get out of my contract I am buying a Droid and you won't ever have to worry about me overpaying for the 300 MB I use in the average month.Jerks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381512</id>
	<title>Re:I can see the conversation now</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1259578200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes! it seems so. This is a rhetorical answer btw.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes !
it seems so .
This is a rhetorical answer btw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes!
it seems so.
This is a rhetorical answer btw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383858</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Leebert</author>
	<datestamp>1259591280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth.</p></div><p>Did you know that if every house in a typical American neighborhood used all of the electrical capacity to their homes, blackouts would ensue?</p><p>Or that if an entire city flushed their toilets, took a shower, and ran the washer at the same time, the water flow would slow to a trickle?</p><p>Or if every car went onto the local Interstate highway at the same time, traffic would completely stop?</p><p>Over-subscription just makes sense.  It's a sound engineering principle, when done correctly.  Granted 2 of those 3 examples tend to not happen if for no other reason than people are charged on a usage basis.  But my point is that there is nothing wrong with over-subscription, it is in fact a *good* thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth.Did you know that if every house in a typical American neighborhood used all of the electrical capacity to their homes , blackouts would ensue ? Or that if an entire city flushed their toilets , took a shower , and ran the washer at the same time , the water flow would slow to a trickle ? Or if every car went onto the local Interstate highway at the same time , traffic would completely stop ? Over-subscription just makes sense .
It 's a sound engineering principle , when done correctly .
Granted 2 of those 3 examples tend to not happen if for no other reason than people are charged on a usage basis .
But my point is that there is nothing wrong with over-subscription , it is in fact a * good * thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth.Did you know that if every house in a typical American neighborhood used all of the electrical capacity to their homes, blackouts would ensue?Or that if an entire city flushed their toilets, took a shower, and ran the washer at the same time, the water flow would slow to a trickle?Or if every car went onto the local Interstate highway at the same time, traffic would completely stop?Over-subscription just makes sense.
It's a sound engineering principle, when done correctly.
Granted 2 of those 3 examples tend to not happen if for no other reason than people are charged on a usage basis.
But my point is that there is nothing wrong with over-subscription, it is in fact a *good* thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381766</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So should I be charge based upon incoming packets? Or outgoing packets?</p><p>Should I be charged per incoming ssh brute force attempt or per outgoing connection to a botnet's C&amp;C server?</p><p>The reason that charging per packet is a dumb idea is that the \_average\_ user has no control over them. Heck, the expert user has no control over incoming packets on the ISP's wires. Sure I can block packets at my firewall, but I've already been charged by that point.</p><p>Paying for bandwidth is far superior - if my paid-for bandwidth is maxed out then I end up with a technical problem, not a financial one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So should I be charge based upon incoming packets ?
Or outgoing packets ? Should I be charged per incoming ssh brute force attempt or per outgoing connection to a botnet 's C&amp;C server ? The reason that charging per packet is a dumb idea is that the \ _average \ _ user has no control over them .
Heck , the expert user has no control over incoming packets on the ISP 's wires .
Sure I can block packets at my firewall , but I 've already been charged by that point.Paying for bandwidth is far superior - if my paid-for bandwidth is maxed out then I end up with a technical problem , not a financial one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So should I be charge based upon incoming packets?
Or outgoing packets?Should I be charged per incoming ssh brute force attempt or per outgoing connection to a botnet's C&amp;C server?The reason that charging per packet is a dumb idea is that the \_average\_ user has no control over them.
Heck, the expert user has no control over incoming packets on the ISP's wires.
Sure I can block packets at my firewall, but I've already been charged by that point.Paying for bandwidth is far superior - if my paid-for bandwidth is maxed out then I end up with a technical problem, not a financial one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381206</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T new to this or what?</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1259576880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>"AT&amp;T has found that only 3\% of its smartphone users &mdash; primarily iPhone owners &mdash; are responsible for 40\% of total data usage, largely for video and audio"</i> </p></div><p>And, this is different from ISP traffic and users how exactly?  Give me a break.  Stop playing the part of ignorant moron provider here whining about excuses.</p><p>If you're gonna raise our rates, then fine, raise them.  Yeah, I know it's to line your greedy pockets, so don't sit here and make me think that my "misunderstanding" of what a fucking "wireless" megabyte is the reason you're doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" AT&amp;T has found that only 3 \ % of its smartphone users    primarily iPhone owners    are responsible for 40 \ % of total data usage , largely for video and audio " And , this is different from ISP traffic and users how exactly ?
Give me a break .
Stop playing the part of ignorant moron provider here whining about excuses.If you 're gon na raise our rates , then fine , raise them .
Yeah , I know it 's to line your greedy pockets , so do n't sit here and make me think that my " misunderstanding " of what a fucking " wireless " megabyte is the reason you 're doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "AT&amp;T has found that only 3\% of its smartphone users — primarily iPhone owners — are responsible for 40\% of total data usage, largely for video and audio" And, this is different from ISP traffic and users how exactly?
Give me a break.
Stop playing the part of ignorant moron provider here whining about excuses.If you're gonna raise our rates, then fine, raise them.
Yeah, I know it's to line your greedy pockets, so don't sit here and make me think that my "misunderstanding" of what a fucking "wireless" megabyte is the reason you're doing it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383026</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>conufsed</author>
	<datestamp>1259586060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You think it's a good idea.

Try it

This is pretty much how all home connections in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.au work. Only thing is I get capped from about 8mb/s to 64kb/s, making my internet connection completely useless.

I normally resort to using my 3G modem until the months ends</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think it 's a good idea .
Try it This is pretty much how all home connections in .au work .
Only thing is I get capped from about 8mb/s to 64kb/s , making my internet connection completely useless .
I normally resort to using my 3G modem until the months ends</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think it's a good idea.
Try it

This is pretty much how all home connections in .au work.
Only thing is I get capped from about 8mb/s to 64kb/s, making my internet connection completely useless.
I normally resort to using my 3G modem until the months ends</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381752</id>
	<title>But ATT already charges based on usage</title>
	<author>beej</author>
	<datestamp>1259579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For text messages, they charge $1.5 million per gigabyte.</p><p>It's different than other data, though, because each gigabyte of texts comes encased in 87 pounds of solid gold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For text messages , they charge $ 1.5 million per gigabyte.It 's different than other data , though , because each gigabyte of texts comes encased in 87 pounds of solid gold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For text messages, they charge $1.5 million per gigabyte.It's different than other data, though, because each gigabyte of texts comes encased in 87 pounds of solid gold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382534</id>
	<title>Price Rationing/Better Information</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1259583120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else's user experience is beyond me.</i></p><p>Right, we either have price rationing or rationing by corporate dictate.</p><p>On a per-bit basis, AT&amp;T's pricing will become transparent, and with that information buyers can shop providers on an equal footing.</p><p>Ah, so perhaps that's why none of them do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else 's user experience is beyond me.Right , we either have price rationing or rationing by corporate dictate.On a per-bit basis , AT&amp;T 's pricing will become transparent , and with that information buyers can shop providers on an equal footing.Ah , so perhaps that 's why none of them do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else's user experience is beyond me.Right, we either have price rationing or rationing by corporate dictate.On a per-bit basis, AT&amp;T's pricing will become transparent, and with that information buyers can shop providers on an equal footing.Ah, so perhaps that's why none of them do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382180</id>
	<title>Re:Dear AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1259581320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Years later, and Lily Tomlin's character is still right.</p><p><a href="http://www.tvacres.com/comm\_ernestine.htm" title="tvacres.com">http://www.tvacres.com/comm\_ernestine.htm</a> [tvacres.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years later , and Lily Tomlin 's character is still right.http : //www.tvacres.com/comm \ _ernestine.htm [ tvacres.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years later, and Lily Tomlin's character is still right.http://www.tvacres.com/comm\_ernestine.htm [tvacres.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382040</id>
	<title>Re:False Advertising</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259580720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Relax. They haven't done anything yet, they're just talking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Relax .
They have n't done anything yet , they 're just talking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Relax.
They haven't done anything yet, they're just talking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383440</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong story label</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259588640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This story should have been declared "AT&amp;T Declares war on customers". For reasons unknown, AT&amp;T just doesn't grasp the idea of upgrading their network.</p> </div><p>There is so little competition out there in the wireless world, the reasons are pretty clear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This story should have been declared " AT&amp;T Declares war on customers " .
For reasons unknown , AT&amp;T just does n't grasp the idea of upgrading their network .
There is so little competition out there in the wireless world , the reasons are pretty clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story should have been declared "AT&amp;T Declares war on customers".
For reasons unknown, AT&amp;T just doesn't grasp the idea of upgrading their network.
There is so little competition out there in the wireless world, the reasons are pretty clear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381164</id>
	<title>$0.22 for a text message</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1259576760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yea, I totally trust this guy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</htmltext>
<tokenext>yea , I totally trust this guy .
/sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea, I totally trust this guy.
/sarcasm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381680</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shock avoidance pricing.</p><p>Most people, even though they don't use data much, would much prefer to pay a fixed $30/mo and have no surprises than to pay as they go and end up with $150 in data usage some month.</p><p>By providing piecemeal pricing that's so high, almost everybody is herded into the fixed rate pricing to avoid surprises, even though if they did the math over a two year period they'd be better off with a couple of $150 "surprise" months and a few piecemeal months (say, $450) than had they paid the higher "unlimited" monthly plan ($720 for 2 years).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shock avoidance pricing.Most people , even though they do n't use data much , would much prefer to pay a fixed $ 30/mo and have no surprises than to pay as they go and end up with $ 150 in data usage some month.By providing piecemeal pricing that 's so high , almost everybody is herded into the fixed rate pricing to avoid surprises , even though if they did the math over a two year period they 'd be better off with a couple of $ 150 " surprise " months and a few piecemeal months ( say , $ 450 ) than had they paid the higher " unlimited " monthly plan ( $ 720 for 2 years ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shock avoidance pricing.Most people, even though they don't use data much, would much prefer to pay a fixed $30/mo and have no surprises than to pay as they go and end up with $150 in data usage some month.By providing piecemeal pricing that's so high, almost everybody is herded into the fixed rate pricing to avoid surprises, even though if they did the math over a two year period they'd be better off with a couple of $150 "surprise" months and a few piecemeal months (say, $450) than had they paid the higher "unlimited" monthly plan ($720 for 2 years).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381072</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the majority of our country developed in an age of cars (post WW2). While some expantion was made prior to this was made on vast frontiers like the old American west. over extremely long distances.</p><p>Europe developed over many thousands of years based apon the distance a man/horse could travel. placing towns much closer together.</p><p>This has put an exponential stress on our instructor such as pipelines and tel-cos.</p><p>that said some ports of the us have it better then others.  A generic statement about the US does not apply, this is a very big country.</p><p>this also is a reflection on our public transit system as well. though personally i think big improvements could be done to fix that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the majority of our country developed in an age of cars ( post WW2 ) .
While some expantion was made prior to this was made on vast frontiers like the old American west .
over extremely long distances.Europe developed over many thousands of years based apon the distance a man/horse could travel .
placing towns much closer together.This has put an exponential stress on our instructor such as pipelines and tel-cos.that said some ports of the us have it better then others .
A generic statement about the US does not apply , this is a very big country.this also is a reflection on our public transit system as well .
though personally i think big improvements could be done to fix that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the majority of our country developed in an age of cars (post WW2).
While some expantion was made prior to this was made on vast frontiers like the old American west.
over extremely long distances.Europe developed over many thousands of years based apon the distance a man/horse could travel.
placing towns much closer together.This has put an exponential stress on our instructor such as pipelines and tel-cos.that said some ports of the us have it better then others.
A generic statement about the US does not apply, this is a very big country.this also is a reflection on our public transit system as well.
though personally i think big improvements could be done to fix that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382540</id>
	<title>Grandma isn't subsidizing you or me</title>
	<author>hellfire</author>
	<datestamp>1259583180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Economics has already won here.  It's call the law of supply and demand.  Customers demand unlimited data packages, so AT+T has supplied it.  There's a reason why no one does those metered fees any more... because consumers don't want them!  This isn't economics, it's greed.  I'm worried that it will come to pass not because of economics, but because the companies will find a way to make customers accept it.  However, I'm hoping that they realize that this will kill the smartphone market because no one wants to buy a smartphone and put up with that kind of plan.</p><p>It was just posted in another article that we <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/12/09/1643237/Each-American-Consumed-34-Gigabytes-Per-Day-In-08" title="slashdot.org">download 34 GB of information a day</a> [slashdot.org] last year.  A DAY!  LAST YEAR!!!  AT+T wants to figure out how to capitalize on that because they want to artificially increase their profits.  They whine and moan about people are making their network slow, but the only one making their network slow is AT+T, by not upgrading it.  AT+T financially is doing just fine and making a profit, now it's up to them to provide me with a service.  The problem with this and other US carriers is not that they are too regulated, it's that they aren't regulated enough into providing a decent level of service.  They are also motivated by greedy investors to maximize their profits, often at the expense of better service because they make more money by trying to screw us than by trying serve us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Economics has already won here .
It 's call the law of supply and demand .
Customers demand unlimited data packages , so AT + T has supplied it .
There 's a reason why no one does those metered fees any more... because consumers do n't want them !
This is n't economics , it 's greed .
I 'm worried that it will come to pass not because of economics , but because the companies will find a way to make customers accept it .
However , I 'm hoping that they realize that this will kill the smartphone market because no one wants to buy a smartphone and put up with that kind of plan.It was just posted in another article that we download 34 GB of information a day [ slashdot.org ] last year .
A DAY !
LAST YEAR ! ! !
AT + T wants to figure out how to capitalize on that because they want to artificially increase their profits .
They whine and moan about people are making their network slow , but the only one making their network slow is AT + T , by not upgrading it .
AT + T financially is doing just fine and making a profit , now it 's up to them to provide me with a service .
The problem with this and other US carriers is not that they are too regulated , it 's that they are n't regulated enough into providing a decent level of service .
They are also motivated by greedy investors to maximize their profits , often at the expense of better service because they make more money by trying to screw us than by trying serve us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economics has already won here.
It's call the law of supply and demand.
Customers demand unlimited data packages, so AT+T has supplied it.
There's a reason why no one does those metered fees any more... because consumers don't want them!
This isn't economics, it's greed.
I'm worried that it will come to pass not because of economics, but because the companies will find a way to make customers accept it.
However, I'm hoping that they realize that this will kill the smartphone market because no one wants to buy a smartphone and put up with that kind of plan.It was just posted in another article that we download 34 GB of information a day [slashdot.org] last year.
A DAY!
LAST YEAR!!!
AT+T wants to figure out how to capitalize on that because they want to artificially increase their profits.
They whine and moan about people are making their network slow, but the only one making their network slow is AT+T, by not upgrading it.
AT+T financially is doing just fine and making a profit, now it's up to them to provide me with a service.
The problem with this and other US carriers is not that they are too regulated, it's that they aren't regulated enough into providing a decent level of service.
They are also motivated by greedy investors to maximize their profits, often at the expense of better service because they make more money by trying to screw us than by trying serve us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384546</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>wazza</author>
	<datestamp>1259597760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come to Australia, mate. Here our biggest (and ex-government-owned) telco, Telstra, has two sorts of plans:</p><p>- Those that are "unlimited", i.e. standard allowance + speed limiting beyond the allowance;<br>- and plans that have a data allowance, and then they charge you 15 cents *per megabyte*. Yep, that's $150 per gig. So you pay (say) $39.95 per month for 2 gb allowance, then if you use 3 gb, your bill is $189.95 for that month<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt;</p><p>Oh! One concession though... Telstra thoughtfully adds to their T's &amp; C's that "excess usage charges for the Turbo 2GB and Elite 2GB plans are capped at $300 per bill cycle".  How generous of them! </p><p>Insane. I mean, I love a sunburnt country, but Telstra is just rubbish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come to Australia , mate .
Here our biggest ( and ex-government-owned ) telco , Telstra , has two sorts of plans : - Those that are " unlimited " , i.e .
standard allowance + speed limiting beyond the allowance ; - and plans that have a data allowance , and then they charge you 15 cents * per megabyte * .
Yep , that 's $ 150 per gig .
So you pay ( say ) $ 39.95 per month for 2 gb allowance , then if you use 3 gb , your bill is $ 189.95 for that month : &gt; Oh !
One concession though... Telstra thoughtfully adds to their T 's &amp; C 's that " excess usage charges for the Turbo 2GB and Elite 2GB plans are capped at $ 300 per bill cycle " .
How generous of them !
Insane. I mean , I love a sunburnt country , but Telstra is just rubbish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come to Australia, mate.
Here our biggest (and ex-government-owned) telco, Telstra, has two sorts of plans:- Those that are "unlimited", i.e.
standard allowance + speed limiting beyond the allowance;- and plans that have a data allowance, and then they charge you 15 cents *per megabyte*.
Yep, that's $150 per gig.
So you pay (say) $39.95 per month for 2 gb allowance, then if you use 3 gb, your bill is $189.95 for that month :&gt;Oh!
One concession though... Telstra thoughtfully adds to their T's &amp; C's that "excess usage charges for the Turbo 2GB and Elite 2GB plans are capped at $300 per bill cycle".
How generous of them!
Insane. I mean, I love a sunburnt country, but Telstra is just rubbish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381026</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1259576220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a <i>technical</i> reason, I'm not sure why charging based on the bandwidth is superior, if you know that the vast majority of customers don't max out the connection most of the time. Charging by usage seems a little closer to capturing the proportion of resources a customer uses in that case.</p><p>There are other downsides to it, but they seem mostly like social ones, not technical ones. For example, people don't like feeling like they're being metered, and it has a chilling effect on a lot of online services if people have to worry about their bandwidth usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a technical reason , I 'm not sure why charging based on the bandwidth is superior , if you know that the vast majority of customers do n't max out the connection most of the time .
Charging by usage seems a little closer to capturing the proportion of resources a customer uses in that case.There are other downsides to it , but they seem mostly like social ones , not technical ones .
For example , people do n't like feeling like they 're being metered , and it has a chilling effect on a lot of online services if people have to worry about their bandwidth usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a technical reason, I'm not sure why charging based on the bandwidth is superior, if you know that the vast majority of customers don't max out the connection most of the time.
Charging by usage seems a little closer to capturing the proportion of resources a customer uses in that case.There are other downsides to it, but they seem mostly like social ones, not technical ones.
For example, people don't like feeling like they're being metered, and it has a chilling effect on a lot of online services if people have to worry about their bandwidth usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382290</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>Snowgen</author>
	<datestamp>1259581860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Charge for extra service for the offending 3\%.</p> </div><p>"Offending"?</p><p>If someone buys "UNLIMITED" (all caps to match marketing material) access, shouldn't they be entitled to UNLIMITED (all caps to match marketing material) usage without being considered "offending"?  That's like saying my family uses too much milk because we drink the full gallon instead of letting it go bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Charge for extra service for the offending 3 \ % .
" Offending " ? If someone buys " UNLIMITED " ( all caps to match marketing material ) access , should n't they be entitled to UNLIMITED ( all caps to match marketing material ) usage without being considered " offending " ?
That 's like saying my family uses too much milk because we drink the full gallon instead of letting it go bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charge for extra service for the offending 3\%.
"Offending"?If someone buys "UNLIMITED" (all caps to match marketing material) access, shouldn't they be entitled to UNLIMITED (all caps to match marketing material) usage without being considered "offending"?
That's like saying my family uses too much milk because we drink the full gallon instead of letting it go bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381398</id>
	<title>Educating that group...</title>
	<author>non-registered</author>
	<datestamp>1259577780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh. My phone stopped working. WTF?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh .
My phone stopped working .
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh.
My phone stopped working.
WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384814</id>
	<title>The beauty of percentages</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1259600580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said this before in other forums. The beauty of this idea is that there will ALWAYS be a top 3\% list of of abusers. This is just a scam by AT&amp;T to get more money. If/When Verizon get's the iPhone, people will bail on AT&amp;T in droves. This will have the effect of reducing AT&amp;T's overloaded network, but it will still leave the users with the bill...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said this before in other forums .
The beauty of this idea is that there will ALWAYS be a top 3 \ % list of of abusers .
This is just a scam by AT&amp;T to get more money .
If/When Verizon get 's the iPhone , people will bail on AT&amp;T in droves .
This will have the effect of reducing AT&amp;T 's overloaded network , but it will still leave the users with the bill.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said this before in other forums.
The beauty of this idea is that there will ALWAYS be a top 3\% list of of abusers.
This is just a scam by AT&amp;T to get more money.
If/When Verizon get's the iPhone, people will bail on AT&amp;T in droves.
This will have the effect of reducing AT&amp;T's overloaded network, but it will still leave the users with the bill...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384226</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T needs to learn how society needs them</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1259594520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rather than try to find ways to charge users more for increased data transfers, AT&amp;T needs to improve their infrastructure to support these needs. Those heavy users that they want to penalize are the vanguard of the future - everyone will be using more bandwidth as web pages get more complex and video / audio streaming becomes even more common.<p>
Increasing fees per MB now will provide a short-term increase in revenue - but it'll also open a window of opportunity for their competitors. Does AT&amp;T want to be part of the future or would they prefer to be a "has been" on the sidelines as progress marches on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than try to find ways to charge users more for increased data transfers , AT&amp;T needs to improve their infrastructure to support these needs .
Those heavy users that they want to penalize are the vanguard of the future - everyone will be using more bandwidth as web pages get more complex and video / audio streaming becomes even more common .
Increasing fees per MB now will provide a short-term increase in revenue - but it 'll also open a window of opportunity for their competitors .
Does AT&amp;T want to be part of the future or would they prefer to be a " has been " on the sidelines as progress marches on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than try to find ways to charge users more for increased data transfers, AT&amp;T needs to improve their infrastructure to support these needs.
Those heavy users that they want to penalize are the vanguard of the future - everyone will be using more bandwidth as web pages get more complex and video / audio streaming becomes even more common.
Increasing fees per MB now will provide a short-term increase in revenue - but it'll also open a window of opportunity for their competitors.
Does AT&amp;T want to be part of the future or would they prefer to be a "has been" on the sidelines as progress marches on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381816</id>
	<title>Re:False Advertising</title>
	<author>japhering</author>
	<datestamp>1259579580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does this mean I can get out of my 2 year contract then? This is blatant false advertising and breach of contract. I did not get an iPhone to have stone-age metered internet access.</p></div><p>Highly unlikely as there is probably some astrisk or footnote stating that unlimited doesn't really mean unlimited and that it is not their fault if you failed to have your attorney approve the agreement before you signed it.</p><p>And by the way the ToS, specifically states that AT&amp;T can change the cost of the unlimited-pda-smartphone-iphone data plans at will.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I can get out of my 2 year contract then ?
This is blatant false advertising and breach of contract .
I did not get an iPhone to have stone-age metered internet access.Highly unlikely as there is probably some astrisk or footnote stating that unlimited does n't really mean unlimited and that it is not their fault if you failed to have your attorney approve the agreement before you signed it.And by the way the ToS , specifically states that AT&amp;T can change the cost of the unlimited-pda-smartphone-iphone data plans at will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I can get out of my 2 year contract then?
This is blatant false advertising and breach of contract.
I did not get an iPhone to have stone-age metered internet access.Highly unlikely as there is probably some astrisk or footnote stating that unlimited doesn't really mean unlimited and that it is not their fault if you failed to have your attorney approve the agreement before you signed it.And by the way the ToS, specifically states that AT&amp;T can change the cost of the unlimited-pda-smartphone-iphone data plans at will.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383648</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259589840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth.</p></div></blockquote><p>
"That's not my department", says Wernher von Braun.</p><blockquote><div><p>ISPs advertise all of these huge download speeds and how great they are. But they punish you behind the scenes if anyone dares to actually use it.</p></div></blockquote><p>
This however should be the problem of the Justice Department and the Trade Commission. It's fraud (in the form of false advertising), and should be treated as such. Just because it's been ignored for years (like drunk driving and music company payola were) doesn't make it right. If some big fines got handed out, then the ISPs would a) be forced to use a more realistic pricing format and b) provision accordingly.</p><blockquote><div><p>Mobile Broadband Providers have a trickier problem in that individual cell sites/towers are the bandwidth choke points. The amount of bandwith they can process is fixed by the limits of the technology (and also the size of the landline pipes from the cell tower back to the MTSO). Mobile provider can't bump up the amount of bandwith with a huge infrastructure investment.</p></div> </blockquote><p>That's an understatement. Spectrum limitations are always going to be the bottleneck on cell data; upgrading links to the CO is comparatively cheap. The cell carriers have purchased the right to use specific bands/subsets of the radio spectrum. Information theory says that you can only get so many bits transferred per second through the frequency range available on that slice of spectrum. The only way for the carriers to get more data through is to buy more of the spectrum, competing for a finite resource with all the other carriers. They ain't making more spectrum (they've recovered some with the transition from analog-&gt;digital) and at some point we'll run out. While it's possible to put the towers slightly closer together, that can only buy you a little because what limits interference across cells is the signal attenuation and that is governed by the laws of physics, not the laws of Congress.On the other hand, if you want more bandwidth between your tower and CO, you can switch to multi-mode fiber or add more strands. However a single strand of fiber already can carry much more data than one - or even dozens of - cell towers.</p><p>
BTW, this also applies to WiFi in the home if you're in a high density area and everybody in your building and around decides to set up a 802.11b/g network for their home computing. Don't go throwing away your Cat6 just yet.</p><blockquote><div><p>And the bandwidth usage is dynamic because people are moving in and out of cell tower coverage areas.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I suspect bandwidth usage changes significantly more for other reasons: start of work day, lunchtime, end of work day, post dinner relaxation. Some of that is because people transition from workplace to home, but I expect some of the biggest changes would be at noon and just after lunch due to changes in activity, not location.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth .
" That 's not my department " , says Wernher von Braun.ISPs advertise all of these huge download speeds and how great they are .
But they punish you behind the scenes if anyone dares to actually use it .
This however should be the problem of the Justice Department and the Trade Commission .
It 's fraud ( in the form of false advertising ) , and should be treated as such .
Just because it 's been ignored for years ( like drunk driving and music company payola were ) does n't make it right .
If some big fines got handed out , then the ISPs would a ) be forced to use a more realistic pricing format and b ) provision accordingly.Mobile Broadband Providers have a trickier problem in that individual cell sites/towers are the bandwidth choke points .
The amount of bandwith they can process is fixed by the limits of the technology ( and also the size of the landline pipes from the cell tower back to the MTSO ) .
Mobile provider ca n't bump up the amount of bandwith with a huge infrastructure investment .
That 's an understatement .
Spectrum limitations are always going to be the bottleneck on cell data ; upgrading links to the CO is comparatively cheap .
The cell carriers have purchased the right to use specific bands/subsets of the radio spectrum .
Information theory says that you can only get so many bits transferred per second through the frequency range available on that slice of spectrum .
The only way for the carriers to get more data through is to buy more of the spectrum , competing for a finite resource with all the other carriers .
They ai n't making more spectrum ( they 've recovered some with the transition from analog- &gt; digital ) and at some point we 'll run out .
While it 's possible to put the towers slightly closer together , that can only buy you a little because what limits interference across cells is the signal attenuation and that is governed by the laws of physics , not the laws of Congress.On the other hand , if you want more bandwidth between your tower and CO , you can switch to multi-mode fiber or add more strands .
However a single strand of fiber already can carry much more data than one - or even dozens of - cell towers .
BTW , this also applies to WiFi in the home if you 're in a high density area and everybody in your building and around decides to set up a 802.11b/g network for their home computing .
Do n't go throwing away your Cat6 just yet.And the bandwidth usage is dynamic because people are moving in and out of cell tower coverage areas .
I suspect bandwidth usage changes significantly more for other reasons : start of work day , lunchtime , end of work day , post dinner relaxation .
Some of that is because people transition from workplace to home , but I expect some of the biggest changes would be at noon and just after lunch due to changes in activity , not location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth.
"That's not my department", says Wernher von Braun.ISPs advertise all of these huge download speeds and how great they are.
But they punish you behind the scenes if anyone dares to actually use it.
This however should be the problem of the Justice Department and the Trade Commission.
It's fraud (in the form of false advertising), and should be treated as such.
Just because it's been ignored for years (like drunk driving and music company payola were) doesn't make it right.
If some big fines got handed out, then the ISPs would a) be forced to use a more realistic pricing format and b) provision accordingly.Mobile Broadband Providers have a trickier problem in that individual cell sites/towers are the bandwidth choke points.
The amount of bandwith they can process is fixed by the limits of the technology (and also the size of the landline pipes from the cell tower back to the MTSO).
Mobile provider can't bump up the amount of bandwith with a huge infrastructure investment.
That's an understatement.
Spectrum limitations are always going to be the bottleneck on cell data; upgrading links to the CO is comparatively cheap.
The cell carriers have purchased the right to use specific bands/subsets of the radio spectrum.
Information theory says that you can only get so many bits transferred per second through the frequency range available on that slice of spectrum.
The only way for the carriers to get more data through is to buy more of the spectrum, competing for a finite resource with all the other carriers.
They ain't making more spectrum (they've recovered some with the transition from analog-&gt;digital) and at some point we'll run out.
While it's possible to put the towers slightly closer together, that can only buy you a little because what limits interference across cells is the signal attenuation and that is governed by the laws of physics, not the laws of Congress.On the other hand, if you want more bandwidth between your tower and CO, you can switch to multi-mode fiber or add more strands.
However a single strand of fiber already can carry much more data than one - or even dozens of - cell towers.
BTW, this also applies to WiFi in the home if you're in a high density area and everybody in your building and around decides to set up a 802.11b/g network for their home computing.
Don't go throwing away your Cat6 just yet.And the bandwidth usage is dynamic because people are moving in and out of cell tower coverage areas.
I suspect bandwidth usage changes significantly more for other reasons: start of work day, lunchtime, end of work day, post dinner relaxation.
Some of that is because people transition from workplace to home, but I expect some of the biggest changes would be at noon and just after lunch due to changes in activity, not location.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381210</id>
	<title>Idiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about not selling people bandwidth that you don't have?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about not selling people bandwidth that you do n't have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about not selling people bandwidth that you don't have?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381540</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>stoicfaux</author>
	<datestamp>1259578320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Claim:  3\% of users consume 40\% of bandwidth
Telco solution:  We must charge everyone based on usage!
If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.  Charge for extra service for the offending 3\%.  They just use this as an excuse to slap everyone with higher rates.</p></div><p>Except that high bandwidth is the future.  4G will essentially allow desktop like bandwidth to your cell phone.  Telcos need to get everyone used to the idea of higher bandwidth fees and the telcos had better use those fees to upgrade their networks now to handle the eventual bandwidth crush.</p><p>Designing a phone interface that would actually allow you to make good use of all that proposed desktop bandwidth is left as an exercise to the reader.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Claim : 3 \ % of users consume 40 \ % of bandwidth Telco solution : We must charge everyone based on usage !
If they can identify 3 \ % of people are using 40 \ % , then by all means put a 'cap ' on the fixed price service that * does n't * affect the 97 \ % of normal users .
Charge for extra service for the offending 3 \ % .
They just use this as an excuse to slap everyone with higher rates.Except that high bandwidth is the future .
4G will essentially allow desktop like bandwidth to your cell phone .
Telcos need to get everyone used to the idea of higher bandwidth fees and the telcos had better use those fees to upgrade their networks now to handle the eventual bandwidth crush.Designing a phone interface that would actually allow you to make good use of all that proposed desktop bandwidth is left as an exercise to the reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Claim:  3\% of users consume 40\% of bandwidth
Telco solution:  We must charge everyone based on usage!
If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.
Charge for extra service for the offending 3\%.
They just use this as an excuse to slap everyone with higher rates.Except that high bandwidth is the future.
4G will essentially allow desktop like bandwidth to your cell phone.
Telcos need to get everyone used to the idea of higher bandwidth fees and the telcos had better use those fees to upgrade their networks now to handle the eventual bandwidth crush.Designing a phone interface that would actually allow you to make good use of all that proposed desktop bandwidth is left as an exercise to the reader.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385376</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well they shouldn't advertise unlimited plans then. Simple. Also if you have less powerful transmitters you can have more of them using smaller areas and increase total bandwidth - think 802.11b sort of strength. OK, so perhaps not actually practical but possible with the right tech. There is no excuse for AT&amp;T to blame users for using the product they sold them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well they should n't advertise unlimited plans then .
Simple. Also if you have less powerful transmitters you can have more of them using smaller areas and increase total bandwidth - think 802.11b sort of strength .
OK , so perhaps not actually practical but possible with the right tech .
There is no excuse for AT&amp;T to blame users for using the product they sold them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well they shouldn't advertise unlimited plans then.
Simple. Also if you have less powerful transmitters you can have more of them using smaller areas and increase total bandwidth - think 802.11b sort of strength.
OK, so perhaps not actually practical but possible with the right tech.
There is no excuse for AT&amp;T to blame users for using the product they sold them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381826</id>
	<title>maximize profit with zero investment</title>
	<author>Lead Butthead</author>
	<datestamp>1259579580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of investing in infrastructure to improve supply, AT&amp;T changes the pricing model to increase profit margin with ZERO (well, near ZERO) cost to themselves. This is neither a surprise nor news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of investing in infrastructure to improve supply , AT&amp;T changes the pricing model to increase profit margin with ZERO ( well , near ZERO ) cost to themselves .
This is neither a surprise nor news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of investing in infrastructure to improve supply, AT&amp;T changes the pricing model to increase profit margin with ZERO (well, near ZERO) cost to themselves.
This is neither a surprise nor news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30390346</id>
	<title>Re:Usage distributions are often expontential</title>
	<author>dem0n1</author>
	<datestamp>1260468840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now when they mention 3\% is that the same subscribers month over month using that bandwidth, or is it that at any given time 3\% of the people on AT&amp;T's network are using 40\% of the bandwidth? I might be bored today and do some bandwidth heavy things, but most of the rest of the time I'm just pulling down a trickle of data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now when they mention 3 \ % is that the same subscribers month over month using that bandwidth , or is it that at any given time 3 \ % of the people on AT&amp;T 's network are using 40 \ % of the bandwidth ?
I might be bored today and do some bandwidth heavy things , but most of the rest of the time I 'm just pulling down a trickle of data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now when they mention 3\% is that the same subscribers month over month using that bandwidth, or is it that at any given time 3\% of the people on AT&amp;T's network are using 40\% of the bandwidth?
I might be bored today and do some bandwidth heavy things, but most of the rest of the time I'm just pulling down a trickle of data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384996</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1259602740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was planning on ditching them as soon as the iPhone died. Perhaps there needs to be a "microwave incident" to hurry the process along. At least their data service is usable now. A couple months ago I could order a sandwich in downtown Boulder and not be able to get a single page before the sandwich guys were done with it (And they're SLOW at lunchtime!) I was also getting tired of laughing derisively whenever I saw an iPhone commercial of someone browsing the web.
<p>
It was a moderately nifty piece of hardware. Too bad they tied the anchor of AT&amp;T's service to it and tipped it into the river.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was planning on ditching them as soon as the iPhone died .
Perhaps there needs to be a " microwave incident " to hurry the process along .
At least their data service is usable now .
A couple months ago I could order a sandwich in downtown Boulder and not be able to get a single page before the sandwich guys were done with it ( And they 're SLOW at lunchtime !
) I was also getting tired of laughing derisively whenever I saw an iPhone commercial of someone browsing the web .
It was a moderately nifty piece of hardware .
Too bad they tied the anchor of AT&amp;T 's service to it and tipped it into the river .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was planning on ditching them as soon as the iPhone died.
Perhaps there needs to be a "microwave incident" to hurry the process along.
At least their data service is usable now.
A couple months ago I could order a sandwich in downtown Boulder and not be able to get a single page before the sandwich guys were done with it (And they're SLOW at lunchtime!
) I was also getting tired of laughing derisively whenever I saw an iPhone commercial of someone browsing the web.
It was a moderately nifty piece of hardware.
Too bad they tied the anchor of AT&amp;T's service to it and tipped it into the river.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381326</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong story label</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259577420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>what are they going to do when they are no longer the exclusive Jesus phone provider?</p></div></blockquote><p>Throw part of the massive profits they've been making back at Apple to keep the iPhone exclusive. At least if I had AT&amp;T's mentality that's what I'd do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what are they going to do when they are no longer the exclusive Jesus phone provider ? Throw part of the massive profits they 've been making back at Apple to keep the iPhone exclusive .
At least if I had AT&amp;T 's mentality that 's what I 'd do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what are they going to do when they are no longer the exclusive Jesus phone provider?Throw part of the massive profits they've been making back at Apple to keep the iPhone exclusive.
At least if I had AT&amp;T's mentality that's what I'd do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381234</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1259577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.  Charge for extra service for the offending 3\%.  They just use this as an excuse to slap everyone with higher rates.</p></div><p>The sad part is todays blood-sucking lawsuit-happy society is a customer could probably sue on grounds of discrimination with your solution...</p><p>The really sad part is they would likely win.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they can identify 3 \ % of people are using 40 \ % , then by all means put a 'cap ' on the fixed price service that * does n't * affect the 97 \ % of normal users .
Charge for extra service for the offending 3 \ % .
They just use this as an excuse to slap everyone with higher rates.The sad part is todays blood-sucking lawsuit-happy society is a customer could probably sue on grounds of discrimination with your solution...The really sad part is they would likely win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.
Charge for extra service for the offending 3\%.
They just use this as an excuse to slap everyone with higher rates.The sad part is todays blood-sucking lawsuit-happy society is a customer could probably sue on grounds of discrimination with your solution...The really sad part is they would likely win.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30387854</id>
	<title>Usage Details</title>
	<author>nullhero</author>
	<datestamp>1260459300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Per AT&amp;T website: $60.00 for 5Gb data plan. That breaks down to $12 per Gb. So , why are they charging $35.00 per 200 MB. So why are they charging $35.00 for 200 MB which would be just 0.2 GB? I think that the FCC should look into that. I have no problem paying $15.00 per Gb. And an additional $5.00 per half Mb. It would work out that if I use 1.25 Gb I would pay that month $20.00 = 15 for the first Gb and 5 for going almost to the halfway mark. I pass the half way mark then charge me $30.00. That would be reasonable and would keep me a loyal AT&amp;T subscriber.

Of course that could increase subscribers on their network. A network that they haven't upgraded to deal with network usage. Look at their 3G map. Yes the cell network covers a very large area but not their 3G network. And the next generation network is being built by everyone but them. It's a shame that when Apple listens to their consumers and leaves AT&amp;T there may just be a massive exodus of iPhone users. Are they prepared for that?

Most people don't mind paying for extra things but give them a good reason. Their messed up network and penalizing their users for it isn't a good reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Per AT&amp;T website : $ 60.00 for 5Gb data plan .
That breaks down to $ 12 per Gb .
So , why are they charging $ 35.00 per 200 MB .
So why are they charging $ 35.00 for 200 MB which would be just 0.2 GB ?
I think that the FCC should look into that .
I have no problem paying $ 15.00 per Gb .
And an additional $ 5.00 per half Mb .
It would work out that if I use 1.25 Gb I would pay that month $ 20.00 = 15 for the first Gb and 5 for going almost to the halfway mark .
I pass the half way mark then charge me $ 30.00 .
That would be reasonable and would keep me a loyal AT&amp;T subscriber .
Of course that could increase subscribers on their network .
A network that they have n't upgraded to deal with network usage .
Look at their 3G map .
Yes the cell network covers a very large area but not their 3G network .
And the next generation network is being built by everyone but them .
It 's a shame that when Apple listens to their consumers and leaves AT&amp;T there may just be a massive exodus of iPhone users .
Are they prepared for that ?
Most people do n't mind paying for extra things but give them a good reason .
Their messed up network and penalizing their users for it is n't a good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Per AT&amp;T website: $60.00 for 5Gb data plan.
That breaks down to $12 per Gb.
So , why are they charging $35.00 per 200 MB.
So why are they charging $35.00 for 200 MB which would be just 0.2 GB?
I think that the FCC should look into that.
I have no problem paying $15.00 per Gb.
And an additional $5.00 per half Mb.
It would work out that if I use 1.25 Gb I would pay that month $20.00 = 15 for the first Gb and 5 for going almost to the halfway mark.
I pass the half way mark then charge me $30.00.
That would be reasonable and would keep me a loyal AT&amp;T subscriber.
Of course that could increase subscribers on their network.
A network that they haven't upgraded to deal with network usage.
Look at their 3G map.
Yes the cell network covers a very large area but not their 3G network.
And the next generation network is being built by everyone but them.
It's a shame that when Apple listens to their consumers and leaves AT&amp;T there may just be a massive exodus of iPhone users.
Are they prepared for that?
Most people don't mind paying for extra things but give them a good reason.
Their messed up network and penalizing their users for it isn't a good reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383974</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>MidnightBrewer</author>
	<datestamp>1259592360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Grandma is only using the data connection to check her email once a day, and that with the 60\% of data bandwidth that seems to be left over for the 97\% of users who don't use iPhones, then I don't really see why we can't peacefully co-exist. If you really want to be fair, you'll reduce Grandma's current rates, since there's no justification for charging her $30 a month for that kind of minimal usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Grandma is only using the data connection to check her email once a day , and that with the 60 \ % of data bandwidth that seems to be left over for the 97 \ % of users who do n't use iPhones , then I do n't really see why we ca n't peacefully co-exist .
If you really want to be fair , you 'll reduce Grandma 's current rates , since there 's no justification for charging her $ 30 a month for that kind of minimal usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Grandma is only using the data connection to check her email once a day, and that with the 60\% of data bandwidth that seems to be left over for the 97\% of users who don't use iPhones, then I don't really see why we can't peacefully co-exist.
If you really want to be fair, you'll reduce Grandma's current rates, since there's no justification for charging her $30 a month for that kind of minimal usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382424</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259582520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't we been over this?</p><p>AT&amp;T basically oversold their infrastructure with the release of the 3G iPhone to the point that gridlock was being noticed by everyone. Moving to usage based data plans does nothing but move the goal posts within the profit court.</p><p>AT&amp;T's underlying infrastructure is outdated. Plain and simple.</p><p>I'd also like to see that 3\% data as well. Really? 3\% of your 'Unlimited Data' users, use 40\% of your total Data bandwidth for cellular services? Any one care to prove the math on that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't we been over this ? AT&amp;T basically oversold their infrastructure with the release of the 3G iPhone to the point that gridlock was being noticed by everyone .
Moving to usage based data plans does nothing but move the goal posts within the profit court.AT&amp;T 's underlying infrastructure is outdated .
Plain and simple.I 'd also like to see that 3 \ % data as well .
Really ? 3 \ % of your 'Unlimited Data ' users , use 40 \ % of your total Data bandwidth for cellular services ?
Any one care to prove the math on that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't we been over this?AT&amp;T basically oversold their infrastructure with the release of the 3G iPhone to the point that gridlock was being noticed by everyone.
Moving to usage based data plans does nothing but move the goal posts within the profit court.AT&amp;T's underlying infrastructure is outdated.
Plain and simple.I'd also like to see that 3\% data as well.
Really? 3\% of your 'Unlimited Data' users, use 40\% of your total Data bandwidth for cellular services?
Any one care to prove the math on that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382410</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1259582460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Claim:  3\% of users consume 40\% of bandwidth</p><p>Telco solution:  We must charge everyone based on usage!</p><p>If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.  Charge for extra service for the offending 3\%.</p></div><p>Spoken like a telecom executive. The people who use our service the most are "offending."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Claim : 3 \ % of users consume 40 \ % of bandwidthTelco solution : We must charge everyone based on usage ! If they can identify 3 \ % of people are using 40 \ % , then by all means put a 'cap ' on the fixed price service that * does n't * affect the 97 \ % of normal users .
Charge for extra service for the offending 3 \ % .Spoken like a telecom executive .
The people who use our service the most are " offending .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Claim:  3\% of users consume 40\% of bandwidthTelco solution:  We must charge everyone based on usage!If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.
Charge for extra service for the offending 3\%.Spoken like a telecom executive.
The people who use our service the most are "offending.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383426</id>
	<title>Re:Dear AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>backdoc</author>
	<datestamp>1259588520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ditto</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ditto</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ditto</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383108</id>
	<title>Looking at it wrong</title>
	<author>SolusSD</author>
	<datestamp>1259586480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be just as correct to say that they found that 97\% of their users are not properly taking advantage of their *unlimited* data plans. I've heard their argument with regard to home cable internet service. "1\% of users are responsible for 90\% of bandwidth usage". Well, when 99\% of your users don't really need 6Mbps, but are paying for it anyway, they're being oversold. Those that take advantage of what they pay for are making good use of it. We need to turn this problem on it's head. Maybe automatic tiered pricing up to the unlimited plan. That would be more fair to light users. Of course, in that case, it is in AT&amp;T's best interest to do nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be just as correct to say that they found that 97 \ % of their users are not properly taking advantage of their * unlimited * data plans .
I 've heard their argument with regard to home cable internet service .
" 1 \ % of users are responsible for 90 \ % of bandwidth usage " .
Well , when 99 \ % of your users do n't really need 6Mbps , but are paying for it anyway , they 're being oversold .
Those that take advantage of what they pay for are making good use of it .
We need to turn this problem on it 's head .
Maybe automatic tiered pricing up to the unlimited plan .
That would be more fair to light users .
Of course , in that case , it is in AT&amp;T 's best interest to do nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be just as correct to say that they found that 97\% of their users are not properly taking advantage of their *unlimited* data plans.
I've heard their argument with regard to home cable internet service.
"1\% of users are responsible for 90\% of bandwidth usage".
Well, when 99\% of your users don't really need 6Mbps, but are paying for it anyway, they're being oversold.
Those that take advantage of what they pay for are making good use of it.
We need to turn this problem on it's head.
Maybe automatic tiered pricing up to the unlimited plan.
That would be more fair to light users.
Of course, in that case, it is in AT&amp;T's best interest to do nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030</id>
	<title>Wrong story label</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story should have been declared "AT&amp;T Declares war on customers". For reasons unknown, AT&amp;T just doesn't grasp the idea of upgrading their network. So they provide shoddy service and blame their users instead. They do everything except take care of their network and their customers. Why do they insist on infrastructure upgrades as a last result? How can they grow when they can't handle what they have now?</p><p>They recently ranked dead last on a major US survey of cell phone providers for every single category. In all seriousness, what are they going to do when they are no longer the exclusive Jesus phone provider? People put up with for lack of an alternative network for their Jesus phone, without that exclusive they would start hemorrhaging customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story should have been declared " AT&amp;T Declares war on customers " .
For reasons unknown , AT&amp;T just does n't grasp the idea of upgrading their network .
So they provide shoddy service and blame their users instead .
They do everything except take care of their network and their customers .
Why do they insist on infrastructure upgrades as a last result ?
How can they grow when they ca n't handle what they have now ? They recently ranked dead last on a major US survey of cell phone providers for every single category .
In all seriousness , what are they going to do when they are no longer the exclusive Jesus phone provider ?
People put up with for lack of an alternative network for their Jesus phone , without that exclusive they would start hemorrhaging customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story should have been declared "AT&amp;T Declares war on customers".
For reasons unknown, AT&amp;T just doesn't grasp the idea of upgrading their network.
So they provide shoddy service and blame their users instead.
They do everything except take care of their network and their customers.
Why do they insist on infrastructure upgrades as a last result?
How can they grow when they can't handle what they have now?They recently ranked dead last on a major US survey of cell phone providers for every single category.
In all seriousness, what are they going to do when they are no longer the exclusive Jesus phone provider?
People put up with for lack of an alternative network for their Jesus phone, without that exclusive they would start hemorrhaging customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384674</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are people too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup..  Those Verizon commercials are actually pretty accurate..  AT&amp;T has a crap 3G network (I have an iPhone) and they are still renting crappy TDM lines from Verizon to interconnect and augment their network between cell sites..    Fiber to the Cell?   Not for AT&amp;T's network..</p><p>I wish Steve Jobs would get it together and offer an iPhone on Verizon's network (or no exclusive deals)....  Yeah, Verizon has their own issues like billing but damn if their 3G coverage isn't the bomb and being constantly upgraded.   AT&amp;T has missed the boat when it comes to infrastructure.   Now they need to figure out how to pay for the upgrades while still offering a crappy thin-piped product.   Well, charging more for it seems to be about right.   Now they SAY it's just 3\% of folks that use 40\%, but chances are they have it set to about 30-40\% of folks violating the cap so they can get as much cash as possible from their users..</p><p>Ugh...</p><p>It's pretty simple.  Don't call it an unlimited plan if it's not..Tell folks up front what they can have for 30 bucks a month..  If it's NOT Unlimited, don't freakin' call it that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup.. Those Verizon commercials are actually pretty accurate.. AT&amp;T has a crap 3G network ( I have an iPhone ) and they are still renting crappy TDM lines from Verizon to interconnect and augment their network between cell sites.. Fiber to the Cell ?
Not for AT&amp;T 's network..I wish Steve Jobs would get it together and offer an iPhone on Verizon 's network ( or no exclusive deals ) .... Yeah , Verizon has their own issues like billing but damn if their 3G coverage is n't the bomb and being constantly upgraded .
AT&amp;T has missed the boat when it comes to infrastructure .
Now they need to figure out how to pay for the upgrades while still offering a crappy thin-piped product .
Well , charging more for it seems to be about right .
Now they SAY it 's just 3 \ % of folks that use 40 \ % , but chances are they have it set to about 30-40 \ % of folks violating the cap so they can get as much cash as possible from their users..Ugh...It 's pretty simple .
Do n't call it an unlimited plan if it 's not..Tell folks up front what they can have for 30 bucks a month.. If it 's NOT Unlimited , do n't freakin ' call it that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup..  Those Verizon commercials are actually pretty accurate..  AT&amp;T has a crap 3G network (I have an iPhone) and they are still renting crappy TDM lines from Verizon to interconnect and augment their network between cell sites..    Fiber to the Cell?
Not for AT&amp;T's network..I wish Steve Jobs would get it together and offer an iPhone on Verizon's network (or no exclusive deals)....  Yeah, Verizon has their own issues like billing but damn if their 3G coverage isn't the bomb and being constantly upgraded.
AT&amp;T has missed the boat when it comes to infrastructure.
Now they need to figure out how to pay for the upgrades while still offering a crappy thin-piped product.
Well, charging more for it seems to be about right.
Now they SAY it's just 3\% of folks that use 40\%, but chances are they have it set to about 30-40\% of folks violating the cap so they can get as much cash as possible from their users..Ugh...It's pretty simple.
Don't call it an unlimited plan if it's not..Tell folks up front what they can have for 30 bucks a month..  If it's NOT Unlimited, don't freakin' call it that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384416</id>
	<title>Re:Should electricity be charged per-watt?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1259596440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it takes continual input to create electricity. There is no continual input to create Internet. The only continual input is electricity cost (pretty much non-changing) and maintenance and upgrades (also fairly static costs). Why should they charge per bit when they don't pay more per bit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it takes continual input to create electricity .
There is no continual input to create Internet .
The only continual input is electricity cost ( pretty much non-changing ) and maintenance and upgrades ( also fairly static costs ) .
Why should they charge per bit when they do n't pay more per bit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it takes continual input to create electricity.
There is no continual input to create Internet.
The only continual input is electricity cost (pretty much non-changing) and maintenance and upgrades (also fairly static costs).
Why should they charge per bit when they don't pay more per bit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381666</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong story label</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1259578860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People put up with for lack of an alternative network for their Jesus phone, without that exclusive they would start hemorrhaging customers.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd say <b>bleeding customers like an arterial wound</b> might be more accurate.  I would definitely jump ship if they screwed with the flat data plan, UNLESS they buy me out by offering a really nice discount for limited usage (some months I hardly use 3G data)...  I do NOT want to get "surprise" bills; that's what I thought I was paying a premium for on the flat data iPhone plan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People put up with for lack of an alternative network for their Jesus phone , without that exclusive they would start hemorrhaging customers.I 'd say bleeding customers like an arterial wound might be more accurate .
I would definitely jump ship if they screwed with the flat data plan , UNLESS they buy me out by offering a really nice discount for limited usage ( some months I hardly use 3G data ) ... I do NOT want to get " surprise " bills ; that 's what I thought I was paying a premium for on the flat data iPhone plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People put up with for lack of an alternative network for their Jesus phone, without that exclusive they would start hemorrhaging customers.I'd say bleeding customers like an arterial wound might be more accurate.
I would definitely jump ship if they screwed with the flat data plan, UNLESS they buy me out by offering a really nice discount for limited usage (some months I hardly use 3G data)...  I do NOT want to get "surprise" bills; that's what I thought I was paying a premium for on the flat data iPhone plan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381570</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are people too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T CEO: Hell, no! I need that bonus for my 5th mansion in Greece!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T CEO : Hell , no !
I need that bonus for my 5th mansion in Greece !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T CEO: Hell, no!
I need that bonus for my 5th mansion in Greece!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384392</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1259596200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does it capture the proportion of resources a person uses? If I'm renting a house, should it matter whether I'm there every night or not? Is living in daily-rate motels is superior to renting a place monthly for a flat fee? Really... the fees for network maintentance are pretty much a sunk cost. They do not change according to usage. So charge the users for the ACTUAL resource they're taking up, which is bandwidth. Not megabytes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does it capture the proportion of resources a person uses ?
If I 'm renting a house , should it matter whether I 'm there every night or not ?
Is living in daily-rate motels is superior to renting a place monthly for a flat fee ?
Really... the fees for network maintentance are pretty much a sunk cost .
They do not change according to usage .
So charge the users for the ACTUAL resource they 're taking up , which is bandwidth .
Not megabytes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does it capture the proportion of resources a person uses?
If I'm renting a house, should it matter whether I'm there every night or not?
Is living in daily-rate motels is superior to renting a place monthly for a flat fee?
Really... the fees for network maintentance are pretty much a sunk cost.
They do not change according to usage.
So charge the users for the ACTUAL resource they're taking up, which is bandwidth.
Not megabytes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383150</id>
	<title>Harumph...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess $30 per month x millions of iPhone subscribers isn't enough for these greedy bastards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess $ 30 per month x millions of iPhone subscribers is n't enough for these greedy bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess $30 per month x millions of iPhone subscribers isn't enough for these greedy bastards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381054</id>
	<title>They already differentiate</title>
	<author>r\_jensen11</author>
	<datestamp>1259576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I had a Blackberry or an iPhone, they would charge me $30-40/mo just for data for said phone.  Same deal for any smartphones that AT&amp;T sells themselves.</p><p>Fortunately for me, I purchased a smartphone that AT&amp;T doesn't sell (got it from Nokia's website) and can get away with paying $10-15/mo for "Unlimited" (i.e. 3GB/mo) data.</p><p>That said, I don't think I've ever used more than 400MB/mo, probably averaging less than 200MB/mo.  Now if they would provide a 200 min/mo voice plan, I would be much happier.  I've somehow managed to wrack up over 1,500 Rollover minutes in the past 5 months with a 450min plan....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had a Blackberry or an iPhone , they would charge me $ 30-40/mo just for data for said phone .
Same deal for any smartphones that AT&amp;T sells themselves.Fortunately for me , I purchased a smartphone that AT&amp;T does n't sell ( got it from Nokia 's website ) and can get away with paying $ 10-15/mo for " Unlimited " ( i.e .
3GB/mo ) data.That said , I do n't think I 've ever used more than 400MB/mo , probably averaging less than 200MB/mo .
Now if they would provide a 200 min/mo voice plan , I would be much happier .
I 've somehow managed to wrack up over 1,500 Rollover minutes in the past 5 months with a 450min plan... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had a Blackberry or an iPhone, they would charge me $30-40/mo just for data for said phone.
Same deal for any smartphones that AT&amp;T sells themselves.Fortunately for me, I purchased a smartphone that AT&amp;T doesn't sell (got it from Nokia's website) and can get away with paying $10-15/mo for "Unlimited" (i.e.
3GB/mo) data.That said, I don't think I've ever used more than 400MB/mo, probably averaging less than 200MB/mo.
Now if they would provide a 200 min/mo voice plan, I would be much happier.
I've somehow managed to wrack up over 1,500 Rollover minutes in the past 5 months with a 450min plan....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381146</id>
	<title>Keep blaming the consumer</title>
	<author>TehCable</author>
	<datestamp>1259576700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am so tired of ISP's blaming their customers for the shortcomings of their network.  The problem is with the way AT&amp;T designed their network, not with the way customers are using it.  Their network was not designed to handle TCP.  They break TCP congestion control by not allowing packet loss.  As soon a high traffic condition is reached, every affect TCP connection retransmits even more, and the situation quickly spirals out of control to where nobody can get a packet through.

<br> <br>Verizon has the same kinds of customers as AT&amp;T and they manage to handle high traffic conditions without grinding to a halt.  I can't wait for my AT&amp;T contract to expire.  The breaking point for me was at a football game when my phone failed to complete a call or send a text message for hours.  The guy standing next to me had Verizon and it worked fine.  He let me use his phone to call a friend.  I got that friend's voice mail because he is also on AT&amp;T.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so tired of ISP 's blaming their customers for the shortcomings of their network .
The problem is with the way AT&amp;T designed their network , not with the way customers are using it .
Their network was not designed to handle TCP .
They break TCP congestion control by not allowing packet loss .
As soon a high traffic condition is reached , every affect TCP connection retransmits even more , and the situation quickly spirals out of control to where nobody can get a packet through .
Verizon has the same kinds of customers as AT&amp;T and they manage to handle high traffic conditions without grinding to a halt .
I ca n't wait for my AT&amp;T contract to expire .
The breaking point for me was at a football game when my phone failed to complete a call or send a text message for hours .
The guy standing next to me had Verizon and it worked fine .
He let me use his phone to call a friend .
I got that friend 's voice mail because he is also on AT&amp;T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so tired of ISP's blaming their customers for the shortcomings of their network.
The problem is with the way AT&amp;T designed their network, not with the way customers are using it.
Their network was not designed to handle TCP.
They break TCP congestion control by not allowing packet loss.
As soon a high traffic condition is reached, every affect TCP connection retransmits even more, and the situation quickly spirals out of control to where nobody can get a packet through.
Verizon has the same kinds of customers as AT&amp;T and they manage to handle high traffic conditions without grinding to a halt.
I can't wait for my AT&amp;T contract to expire.
The breaking point for me was at a football game when my phone failed to complete a call or send a text message for hours.
The guy standing next to me had Verizon and it worked fine.
He let me use his phone to call a friend.
I got that friend's voice mail because he is also on AT&amp;T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381040</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T fails again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>god forbid they actually improve their network to handle the equipment they sell to use on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>god forbid they actually improve their network to handle the equipment they sell to use on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>god forbid they actually improve their network to handle the equipment they sell to use on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381606</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>scamper\_22</author>
	<datestamp>1259578560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah.  Metering just causes too many social problems.  Many people just write off entire services if they have to keep track of how much they use.</p><p>I've always been in favor of you get X MB uncapped per month.  Once you cross X MB, then you get throttled (yes... evil throttling...) .  I think lets the user get away without worrying about anything.  It also allows ISPs to target that 3\% of users who are streaming videos all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Metering just causes too many social problems .
Many people just write off entire services if they have to keep track of how much they use.I 've always been in favor of you get X MB uncapped per month .
Once you cross X MB , then you get throttled ( yes... evil throttling... ) .
I think lets the user get away without worrying about anything .
It also allows ISPs to target that 3 \ % of users who are streaming videos all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Metering just causes too many social problems.
Many people just write off entire services if they have to keep track of how much they use.I've always been in favor of you get X MB uncapped per month.
Once you cross X MB, then you get throttled (yes... evil throttling...) .
I think lets the user get away without worrying about anything.
It also allows ISPs to target that 3\% of users who are streaming videos all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</id>
	<title>The classic double speak</title>
	<author>pixelpusher220</author>
	<datestamp>1259576040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Claim:  3\% of users consume 40\% of bandwidth<br> <br>

Telco solution:  We must charge everyone based on usage!<br> <br>

If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.  Charge for extra service for the offending 3\%.  They just use this as an excuse to slap everyone with higher rates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Claim : 3 \ % of users consume 40 \ % of bandwidth Telco solution : We must charge everyone based on usage !
If they can identify 3 \ % of people are using 40 \ % , then by all means put a 'cap ' on the fixed price service that * does n't * affect the 97 \ % of normal users .
Charge for extra service for the offending 3 \ % .
They just use this as an excuse to slap everyone with higher rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Claim:  3\% of users consume 40\% of bandwidth 

Telco solution:  We must charge everyone based on usage!
If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.
Charge for extra service for the offending 3\%.
They just use this as an excuse to slap everyone with higher rates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30394844</id>
	<title>Reduce data by caching Google Maps</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1260442080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how much data is pulling images from Google Maps?  I wonder if the maps application cached images better if it might help.  It is silly when I have to wait to get a map of an area I was just in yesterday.  I know the Google Earth desktop app can cache gigabytes of data.  My 3GS has more than enough space to have a comparably sized cache.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how much data is pulling images from Google Maps ?
I wonder if the maps application cached images better if it might help .
It is silly when I have to wait to get a map of an area I was just in yesterday .
I know the Google Earth desktop app can cache gigabytes of data .
My 3GS has more than enough space to have a comparably sized cache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how much data is pulling images from Google Maps?
I wonder if the maps application cached images better if it might help.
It is silly when I have to wait to get a map of an area I was just in yesterday.
I know the Google Earth desktop app can cache gigabytes of data.
My 3GS has more than enough space to have a comparably sized cache.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383206</id>
	<title>Re:What's this line on my iPhone bill?</title>
	<author>rhizome</author>
	<datestamp>1259587020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>See, AT&amp;T? It's right where you printed it. Unlimited data for a predetermined cost.</i></p><p>Except that they didn't print "Unlimited data," what I see in your pasted text is "Data Unlimited." Perhaps it's a distinction without a trademark, but you can be your bippy they'd use it if it came down to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , AT&amp;T ?
It 's right where you printed it .
Unlimited data for a predetermined cost.Except that they did n't print " Unlimited data , " what I see in your pasted text is " Data Unlimited .
" Perhaps it 's a distinction without a trademark , but you can be your bippy they 'd use it if it came down to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, AT&amp;T?
It's right where you printed it.
Unlimited data for a predetermined cost.Except that they didn't print "Unlimited data," what I see in your pasted text is "Data Unlimited.
" Perhaps it's a distinction without a trademark, but you can be your bippy they'd use it if it came down to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384862</id>
	<title>Re:What's this line on my iPhone bill?</title>
	<author>SpectreBlofeld</author>
	<datestamp>1259601240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, you won't be able to get out of your contract with this, because your contract will not change. Virtually every time a carrier changes a policy, it affects only new contracts that are signed. For instance, when the carriers dropped their tethering/aircard plans from unlimited to a 5gb/month cap, people were able to keep the old unlimited plans if they already had them, but new signups or people changing their plan had to submit to the new terms and conditions.</p><p>This is either a good or bad thing for you - good if you want to keep your current terms and conditions, bad if you're wanting to use this as leverage to get out of your contract. If you're sticking with them, don't ever change your plan, because you'll lose the advantages of your current service agreement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , you wo n't be able to get out of your contract with this , because your contract will not change .
Virtually every time a carrier changes a policy , it affects only new contracts that are signed .
For instance , when the carriers dropped their tethering/aircard plans from unlimited to a 5gb/month cap , people were able to keep the old unlimited plans if they already had them , but new signups or people changing their plan had to submit to the new terms and conditions.This is either a good or bad thing for you - good if you want to keep your current terms and conditions , bad if you 're wanting to use this as leverage to get out of your contract .
If you 're sticking with them , do n't ever change your plan , because you 'll lose the advantages of your current service agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, you won't be able to get out of your contract with this, because your contract will not change.
Virtually every time a carrier changes a policy, it affects only new contracts that are signed.
For instance, when the carriers dropped their tethering/aircard plans from unlimited to a 5gb/month cap, people were able to keep the old unlimited plans if they already had them, but new signups or people changing their plan had to submit to the new terms and conditions.This is either a good or bad thing for you - good if you want to keep your current terms and conditions, bad if you're wanting to use this as leverage to get out of your contract.
If you're sticking with them, don't ever change your plan, because you'll lose the advantages of your current service agreement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382146</id>
	<title>Pot calling the kettle black, non?</title>
	<author>otter42</author>
	<datestamp>1259581200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'The first thing we need to do is educate customers about what represents a megabyte of data...</i></p><p>Excuse me, but aren't you the people who charge me for 1MB if I download 1byte?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'The first thing we need to do is educate customers about what represents a megabyte of data...Excuse me , but are n't you the people who charge me for 1MB if I download 1byte ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The first thing we need to do is educate customers about what represents a megabyte of data...Excuse me, but aren't you the people who charge me for 1MB if I download 1byte?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381546</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20th place, last I looked, for wired broadband.  I'd doubt we're much better than that for wireless.</p><p>"Instead of upgrading infrastructure to keep up with increasing demands, and be ready for the future, why not just charge more for people who use their phones a lot?  Then we can get bailed out by the government for failing by falling behind."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20th place , last I looked , for wired broadband .
I 'd doubt we 're much better than that for wireless .
" Instead of upgrading infrastructure to keep up with increasing demands , and be ready for the future , why not just charge more for people who use their phones a lot ?
Then we can get bailed out by the government for failing by falling behind .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20th place, last I looked, for wired broadband.
I'd doubt we're much better than that for wireless.
"Instead of upgrading infrastructure to keep up with increasing demands, and be ready for the future, why not just charge more for people who use their phones a lot?
Then we can get bailed out by the government for failing by falling behind.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382922</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259585460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never thought I would have to consider your grandma before going into a contractual agreement with a ATT. But OK, let's forget about hard contracts that bind and sometimes even protect us, and have some sympathy for ATT. Let's raise the rates! Do it for ATT, and do it for grandma!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never thought I would have to consider your grandma before going into a contractual agreement with a ATT .
But OK , let 's forget about hard contracts that bind and sometimes even protect us , and have some sympathy for ATT .
Let 's raise the rates !
Do it for ATT , and do it for grandma !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never thought I would have to consider your grandma before going into a contractual agreement with a ATT.
But OK, let's forget about hard contracts that bind and sometimes even protect us, and have some sympathy for ATT.
Let's raise the rates!
Do it for ATT, and do it for grandma!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381638</id>
	<title>Re:What about lower fees for low bandwidth users?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1259578680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I would like (no chance) is if they charged<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/less/ if you were a low bandwidth user.</p></div><p>That is the default behaviour of usage based fees.</p><p>What most ISPs would like, is to charge you a good fee no matter what you use, then charge you again if you use more than their average projections. This is ironically what 95\% of users want as well. Most don't realise they are subsidising the heavy users.<br>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I would like ( no chance ) is if they charged /less/ if you were a low bandwidth user.That is the default behaviour of usage based fees.What most ISPs would like , is to charge you a good fee no matter what you use , then charge you again if you use more than their average projections .
This is ironically what 95 \ % of users want as well .
Most do n't realise they are subsidising the heavy users .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I would like (no chance) is if they charged /less/ if you were a low bandwidth user.That is the default behaviour of usage based fees.What most ISPs would like, is to charge you a good fee no matter what you use, then charge you again if you use more than their average projections.
This is ironically what 95\% of users want as well.
Most don't realise they are subsidising the heavy users.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383192</id>
	<title>Let the market sort it out</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1259586960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Here's our cool phone that can surf the internet no matter where you are and you can download and watch videos!  Buy us!  Ok, thanks.  Now just don't actually do that too much."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Here 's our cool phone that can surf the internet no matter where you are and you can download and watch videos !
Buy us !
Ok , thanks .
Now just do n't actually do that too much .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Here's our cool phone that can surf the internet no matter where you are and you can download and watch videos!
Buy us!
Ok, thanks.
Now just don't actually do that too much.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384196</id>
	<title>Today it's the iPhone - tomorrow it's what?</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259594220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPhone has opened the data usage floodgates, and those gates will never be closed again.  The horse is out of the barn, the toothpaste is out of the tube.</p><p>EVERY smartphone from now on will be a heavy data usage device.  Droid is the next data heavy product.  Heavy data use is the new "normal".</p><p>What will happen to these carriers when not only smartphones, but EVERY phone heavily relies on data service?</p><p>My advice to the carriers: build baby build.  Data service is going through the roof in the next 5 years.  LTE can't come soon enough.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone has opened the data usage floodgates , and those gates will never be closed again .
The horse is out of the barn , the toothpaste is out of the tube.EVERY smartphone from now on will be a heavy data usage device .
Droid is the next data heavy product .
Heavy data use is the new " normal " .What will happen to these carriers when not only smartphones , but EVERY phone heavily relies on data service ? My advice to the carriers : build baby build .
Data service is going through the roof in the next 5 years .
LTE ca n't come soon enough.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone has opened the data usage floodgates, and those gates will never be closed again.
The horse is out of the barn, the toothpaste is out of the tube.EVERY smartphone from now on will be a heavy data usage device.
Droid is the next data heavy product.
Heavy data use is the new "normal".What will happen to these carriers when not only smartphones, but EVERY phone heavily relies on data service?My advice to the carriers: build baby build.
Data service is going through the roof in the next 5 years.
LTE can't come soon enough.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381694</id>
	<title>Re:Dear AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>jduhls</author>
	<datestamp>1259578980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If you don't get your shit together, I will be switching over to Verizon's Droid when my iPhone's contract is up."<br>
<br>
Yep, I'm already planning to do this, too.  Leaving their DSL service, too.  Can't wait to vote with my wallet!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you do n't get your shit together , I will be switching over to Verizon 's Droid when my iPhone 's contract is up .
" Yep , I 'm already planning to do this , too .
Leaving their DSL service , too .
Ca n't wait to vote with my wallet ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you don't get your shit together, I will be switching over to Verizon's Droid when my iPhone's contract is up.
"

Yep, I'm already planning to do this, too.
Leaving their DSL service, too.
Can't wait to vote with my wallet!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381012</id>
	<title>Usage distributions are often expontential</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usage distributions are often expontential or look near to an exponential distribution (other distributions would be power-law distribution or pareto distributions).</p><p>This means that a small proportion (20\%) uses more resources than say a majority (80\%). So it fits this case quite well.<br>So most people use 60\% of the ``bandwidth'' or less and 3\% use 40\% of the bandwidth.</p><p>The problem here is that these distributions are scale free. This means there will always be a heavy usage proportion which uses way more than other users. But that's actually quite natural. It is too be expected. So when Rogers and AT&amp;T and Bell make up these stats, they are most likely true, but they are being dishonest. They don't expect users to understand statistics enough to accept that this will almost always happen. This is expected, and for AT&amp;T they know it is expected. You can't tell me that everyone working for AT&amp;T lacks the stats knowledge to know this. So they are basically arguing dishonestly that power users ruin it for everyone. Well get rid of the power users.. Now there's a different distribution, are you going to rid yourself of the power users again? How long before you have no users?</p><p>This is an expected usage distribution, it is nothing to be concerned about but it is always going to be used as a club against people who actually make use of a service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usage distributions are often expontential or look near to an exponential distribution ( other distributions would be power-law distribution or pareto distributions ) .This means that a small proportion ( 20 \ % ) uses more resources than say a majority ( 80 \ % ) .
So it fits this case quite well.So most people use 60 \ % of the ` ` bandwidth' ' or less and 3 \ % use 40 \ % of the bandwidth.The problem here is that these distributions are scale free .
This means there will always be a heavy usage proportion which uses way more than other users .
But that 's actually quite natural .
It is too be expected .
So when Rogers and AT&amp;T and Bell make up these stats , they are most likely true , but they are being dishonest .
They do n't expect users to understand statistics enough to accept that this will almost always happen .
This is expected , and for AT&amp;T they know it is expected .
You ca n't tell me that everyone working for AT&amp;T lacks the stats knowledge to know this .
So they are basically arguing dishonestly that power users ruin it for everyone .
Well get rid of the power users.. Now there 's a different distribution , are you going to rid yourself of the power users again ?
How long before you have no users ? This is an expected usage distribution , it is nothing to be concerned about but it is always going to be used as a club against people who actually make use of a service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usage distributions are often expontential or look near to an exponential distribution (other distributions would be power-law distribution or pareto distributions).This means that a small proportion (20\%) uses more resources than say a majority (80\%).
So it fits this case quite well.So most people use 60\% of the ``bandwidth'' or less and 3\% use 40\% of the bandwidth.The problem here is that these distributions are scale free.
This means there will always be a heavy usage proportion which uses way more than other users.
But that's actually quite natural.
It is too be expected.
So when Rogers and AT&amp;T and Bell make up these stats, they are most likely true, but they are being dishonest.
They don't expect users to understand statistics enough to accept that this will almost always happen.
This is expected, and for AT&amp;T they know it is expected.
You can't tell me that everyone working for AT&amp;T lacks the stats knowledge to know this.
So they are basically arguing dishonestly that power users ruin it for everyone.
Well get rid of the power users.. Now there's a different distribution, are you going to rid yourself of the power users again?
How long before you have no users?This is an expected usage distribution, it is nothing to be concerned about but it is always going to be used as a club against people who actually make use of a service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381384</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259577720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The line is where "I" draw it. They are greedy when they expect me to stay after they move it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The line is where " I " draw it .
They are greedy when they expect me to stay after they move it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The line is where "I" draw it.
They are greedy when they expect me to stay after they move it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382550</id>
	<title>Does this mean the end of iPhone exclusivity?</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1259583240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was talking to my fiend the other day about ATT's outrageous prices for iPhone customers.  You know it's bad when even a Verizon user thinks your service is expensive.  ATT says that the problem is iPhone users require 5 - 10 times more bandwidth than other users.  As of today, they can charge what they want because no one else has the iPhone on their network.  There has been a lot of speculation that the exclusive contract is about to end, if that's true this news makes sense, as ATT will be looking for ways to increase their perceived value in order to stay competitive in a market where they no longer have an exclusive contract.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was talking to my fiend the other day about ATT 's outrageous prices for iPhone customers .
You know it 's bad when even a Verizon user thinks your service is expensive .
ATT says that the problem is iPhone users require 5 - 10 times more bandwidth than other users .
As of today , they can charge what they want because no one else has the iPhone on their network .
There has been a lot of speculation that the exclusive contract is about to end , if that 's true this news makes sense , as ATT will be looking for ways to increase their perceived value in order to stay competitive in a market where they no longer have an exclusive contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was talking to my fiend the other day about ATT's outrageous prices for iPhone customers.
You know it's bad when even a Verizon user thinks your service is expensive.
ATT says that the problem is iPhone users require 5 - 10 times more bandwidth than other users.
As of today, they can charge what they want because no one else has the iPhone on their network.
There has been a lot of speculation that the exclusive contract is about to end, if that's true this news makes sense, as ATT will be looking for ways to increase their perceived value in order to stay competitive in a market where they no longer have an exclusive contract.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381036</id>
	<title>One Uppers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Educating people to let them know how much data they use will only lead them to best their friends for the maximum throughput per month trophy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Educating people to let them know how much data they use will only lead them to best their friends for the maximum throughput per month trophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Educating people to let them know how much data they use will only lead them to best their friends for the maximum throughput per month trophy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382084</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are people too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259580960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>corporate personhood was a mistake and should be undone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>corporate personhood was a mistake and should be undone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>corporate personhood was a mistake and should be undone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383802</id>
	<title>Yeah it figures...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1259590800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Yes, that's the way to do it.  Before the industry even comes close to reasonable wireless throughput, they're going to take careful aim and shoot themselves right in the foot.  With wifi becoming more and more ubiquitous, and providing a user experience an order of magnitude better than 3G, and more and more devices coming out with wifi standard, what the hell do we even need data service for?  It's expensive (a wireless data plan costs as much or more as a DSL line) butt slow, quirky, has huge latency, and now, it's going to be even more expensive.  Way to kill an industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that 's the way to do it .
Before the industry even comes close to reasonable wireless throughput , they 're going to take careful aim and shoot themselves right in the foot .
With wifi becoming more and more ubiquitous , and providing a user experience an order of magnitude better than 3G , and more and more devices coming out with wifi standard , what the hell do we even need data service for ?
It 's expensive ( a wireless data plan costs as much or more as a DSL line ) butt slow , quirky , has huge latency , and now , it 's going to be even more expensive .
Way to kill an industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yes, that's the way to do it.
Before the industry even comes close to reasonable wireless throughput, they're going to take careful aim and shoot themselves right in the foot.
With wifi becoming more and more ubiquitous, and providing a user experience an order of magnitude better than 3G, and more and more devices coming out with wifi standard, what the hell do we even need data service for?
It's expensive (a wireless data plan costs as much or more as a DSL line) butt slow, quirky, has huge latency, and now, it's going to be even more expensive.
Way to kill an industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381104</id>
	<title>Ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, I find the idea of paying for usage when that usage includes unsolicited ads to be appalling (and, unlike, say, TV ads, the revenue from web ads does not go to the carrier). If I have to pay for usage, then enable me to determine what is sent to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I find the idea of paying for usage when that usage includes unsolicited ads to be appalling ( and , unlike , say , TV ads , the revenue from web ads does not go to the carrier ) .
If I have to pay for usage , then enable me to determine what is sent to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I find the idea of paying for usage when that usage includes unsolicited ads to be appalling (and, unlike, say, TV ads, the revenue from web ads does not go to the carrier).
If I have to pay for usage, then enable me to determine what is sent to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382104</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, but businesses do that all the time as well. For instance, consider the buyers of Microsoft quality assurance for consumer Windows from 1999 to today. It's basically due to operations/finance not being capable of dealing with cash holdbacks for more than 1 year (although they somehow seem to manage it when they "self-insure" or set aside money for warranty coverage - just why are COOs/CFOs paid that much again?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but businesses do that all the time as well .
For instance , consider the buyers of Microsoft quality assurance for consumer Windows from 1999 to today .
It 's basically due to operations/finance not being capable of dealing with cash holdbacks for more than 1 year ( although they somehow seem to manage it when they " self-insure " or set aside money for warranty coverage - just why are COOs/CFOs paid that much again ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but businesses do that all the time as well.
For instance, consider the buyers of Microsoft quality assurance for consumer Windows from 1999 to today.
It's basically due to operations/finance not being capable of dealing with cash holdbacks for more than 1 year (although they somehow seem to manage it when they "self-insure" or set aside money for warranty coverage - just why are COOs/CFOs paid that much again?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385016</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations are people too</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1259603040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Corporate America: our mistakes are our customers' fault and they need to pay through the nose or else they'll never learn.</p></div><p>This only really happens when the marketplace isn't competitive, which usually happens when the government isn't doing its job.  In the cell phone market, there are competing companies, but the barrier to switching is high enough that there's little incentive for any of them to try to make their customers happy, because they know their customers won't leave anyway.  If we didn't have two-year contracts, that wouldn't be true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporate America : our mistakes are our customers ' fault and they need to pay through the nose or else they 'll never learn.This only really happens when the marketplace is n't competitive , which usually happens when the government is n't doing its job .
In the cell phone market , there are competing companies , but the barrier to switching is high enough that there 's little incentive for any of them to try to make their customers happy , because they know their customers wo n't leave anyway .
If we did n't have two-year contracts , that would n't be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Corporate America: our mistakes are our customers' fault and they need to pay through the nose or else they'll never learn.This only really happens when the marketplace isn't competitive, which usually happens when the government isn't doing its job.
In the cell phone market, there are competing companies, but the barrier to switching is high enough that there's little incentive for any of them to try to make their customers happy, because they know their customers won't leave anyway.
If we didn't have two-year contracts, that wouldn't be true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383712</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>John.P.Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1259590200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This wouldn't be so bad if I could pay for a bucket of data (x GB per month) and use it over several devices (provided they aren't subsidized devices) between me and my wife and other family members and roll over unused data into future months.  There is no reason why having my laptop, phone, car, and numerous other devices should cost more than using all the data through the same device.  But of course then my bills would go down instead of up so that will never happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would n't be so bad if I could pay for a bucket of data ( x GB per month ) and use it over several devices ( provided they are n't subsidized devices ) between me and my wife and other family members and roll over unused data into future months .
There is no reason why having my laptop , phone , car , and numerous other devices should cost more than using all the data through the same device .
But of course then my bills would go down instead of up so that will never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This wouldn't be so bad if I could pay for a bucket of data (x GB per month) and use it over several devices (provided they aren't subsidized devices) between me and my wife and other family members and roll over unused data into future months.
There is no reason why having my laptop, phone, car, and numerous other devices should cost more than using all the data through the same device.
But of course then my bills would go down instead of up so that will never happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381470</id>
	<title>Forgive me if I am naive.</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1259578020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish we could all get together in some way and finance a lobbying group in Washington to try and undercut these douche bags like ATT, Comcast, ETC and regulate them, open the network and get some form of sane Network Neutrality.</p><p>I have to say I would prefer ATT and Comcast as dumb pipes, because I have yet to see either of them offer any content I would want and if they focused on their core business (the aforementioned dumb pipes)they should get their profits without the slash and burn the user business techniques..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish we could all get together in some way and finance a lobbying group in Washington to try and undercut these douche bags like ATT , Comcast , ETC and regulate them , open the network and get some form of sane Network Neutrality.I have to say I would prefer ATT and Comcast as dumb pipes , because I have yet to see either of them offer any content I would want and if they focused on their core business ( the aforementioned dumb pipes ) they should get their profits without the slash and burn the user business techniques. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish we could all get together in some way and finance a lobbying group in Washington to try and undercut these douche bags like ATT, Comcast, ETC and regulate them, open the network and get some form of sane Network Neutrality.I have to say I would prefer ATT and Comcast as dumb pipes, because I have yet to see either of them offer any content I would want and if they focused on their core business (the aforementioned dumb pipes)they should get their profits without the slash and burn the user business techniques..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381896</id>
	<title>Dear AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1259579940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear that my iPhone is bogging down your network. I would like to help you with your problem. Release me from my contract without early termination fees, and I will take my traffic (and business) to Verizon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear that my iPhone is bogging down your network .
I would like to help you with your problem .
Release me from my contract without early termination fees , and I will take my traffic ( and business ) to Verizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear that my iPhone is bogging down your network.
I would like to help you with your problem.
Release me from my contract without early termination fees, and I will take my traffic (and business) to Verizon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382242</id>
	<title>Re:Forgive me if I am naive.</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1259581560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government regulation is what existing big players do to prevent anyone new from competing.  Government regulation always gives the existing oligopoly advange over incomers, never the reverse.  Even in those rare cases where the regulations aren't written by the companies themselves, regulatory compliance is a large fixed cost, so it always benefits companies with a large number of customers to spread that cost across, and often locks out small start-ups entirely.</p><p>Regulation: it doesn't do what you think it does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government regulation is what existing big players do to prevent anyone new from competing .
Government regulation always gives the existing oligopoly advange over incomers , never the reverse .
Even in those rare cases where the regulations are n't written by the companies themselves , regulatory compliance is a large fixed cost , so it always benefits companies with a large number of customers to spread that cost across , and often locks out small start-ups entirely.Regulation : it does n't do what you think it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government regulation is what existing big players do to prevent anyone new from competing.
Government regulation always gives the existing oligopoly advange over incomers, never the reverse.
Even in those rare cases where the regulations aren't written by the companies themselves, regulatory compliance is a large fixed cost, so it always benefits companies with a large number of customers to spread that cost across, and often locks out small start-ups entirely.Regulation: it doesn't do what you think it does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381046</id>
	<title>How about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they use the ridiculously increasing monthly fees they are charging me and improve their capacity? Like the commercials advertise? I mean, ten cents each time someone sends me a text? They tried to charge me five beans to pay my bill over the phone. They are sucking the life right out of me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they use the ridiculously increasing monthly fees they are charging me and improve their capacity ?
Like the commercials advertise ?
I mean , ten cents each time someone sends me a text ?
They tried to charge me five beans to pay my bill over the phone .
They are sucking the life right out of me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they use the ridiculously increasing monthly fees they are charging me and improve their capacity?
Like the commercials advertise?
I mean, ten cents each time someone sends me a text?
They tried to charge me five beans to pay my bill over the phone.
They are sucking the life right out of me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381736</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Income - Expenses = Profit  If an executive gets 100 million (thats an expense), and their profit is only 10 million, hmm, they can double their profit very easily in my mind...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Income - Expenses = Profit If an executive gets 100 million ( thats an expense ) , and their profit is only 10 million , hmm , they can double their profit very easily in my mind.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Income - Expenses = Profit  If an executive gets 100 million (thats an expense), and their profit is only 10 million, hmm, they can double their profit very easily in my mind...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381882</id>
	<title>Can your network do that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will be interesting to see the reaction from a lot of iPhone users. With current defensive commercials AT&amp;T releasing, you would think, they would try to keep more users on their network. This way you are making people pay more, so why should they stay with your crappy network, they will either flee to bad &amp; cheap network, or good &amp; expensive network. You want to sell bad &amp; expensive network. This is total BS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be interesting to see the reaction from a lot of iPhone users .
With current defensive commercials AT&amp;T releasing , you would think , they would try to keep more users on their network .
This way you are making people pay more , so why should they stay with your crappy network , they will either flee to bad &amp; cheap network , or good &amp; expensive network .
You want to sell bad &amp; expensive network .
This is total BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be interesting to see the reaction from a lot of iPhone users.
With current defensive commercials AT&amp;T releasing, you would think, they would try to keep more users on their network.
This way you are making people pay more, so why should they stay with your crappy network, they will either flee to bad &amp; cheap network, or good &amp; expensive network.
You want to sell bad &amp; expensive network.
This is total BS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384314</id>
	<title>Suck it up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm paying a fortune for my iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm paying a fortune for my iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm paying a fortune for my iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383658</id>
	<title>Don't send everything to the NSA!</title>
	<author>rajafarian</author>
	<datestamp>1259589900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That could maybe double the bandwidth available, no?</p><p><a href="http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3597701/EFF+Charges+ATT+Assisted+NSA+in+Surveillance+Plan.htm" title="internetnews.com">http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3597701/EFF+Charges+ATT+Assisted+NSA+in+Surveillance+Plan.htm</a> [internetnews.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.eff.org/nsa/faq" title="eff.org">http://www.eff.org/nsa/faq</a> [eff.org]</p><p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdawg/93928749/" title="flickr.com">http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdawg/93928749/</a> [flickr.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That could maybe double the bandwidth available , no ? http : //www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3597701/EFF + Charges + ATT + Assisted + NSA + in + Surveillance + Plan.htm [ internetnews.com ] http : //www.eff.org/nsa/faq [ eff.org ] http : //www.flickr.com/photos/jdawg/93928749/ [ flickr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That could maybe double the bandwidth available, no?http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3597701/EFF+Charges+ATT+Assisted+NSA+in+Surveillance+Plan.htm [internetnews.com]http://www.eff.org/nsa/faq [eff.org]http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdawg/93928749/ [flickr.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381194</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>DogDude</author>
	<datestamp>1259576880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what?  Why is this an issue?  Use another service if you don't like AT&amp;T's fees.  There are plenty of other options out there.  I happen to use Sprint.  For $100/month, I have unlimited everything (voice, text, data, etc.).  Pick another carrier, or don't use a cell phone at all.  I fail to see how this is newsworthy of even Slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ?
Why is this an issue ?
Use another service if you do n't like AT&amp;T 's fees .
There are plenty of other options out there .
I happen to use Sprint .
For $ 100/month , I have unlimited everything ( voice , text , data , etc. ) .
Pick another carrier , or do n't use a cell phone at all .
I fail to see how this is newsworthy of even Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?
Why is this an issue?
Use another service if you don't like AT&amp;T's fees.
There are plenty of other options out there.
I happen to use Sprint.
For $100/month, I have unlimited everything (voice, text, data, etc.).
Pick another carrier, or don't use a cell phone at all.
I fail to see how this is newsworthy of even Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381576</id>
	<title>Re:Dear AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear iPhone user,</p><p>Switch to a true push system like BlackBerry, and use 1/10th of the data requirements of iPhone's "polling" method of checking email, instead of blaming the network.  Before you iPhone prima donnas showed up, their network was fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear iPhone user,Switch to a true push system like BlackBerry , and use 1/10th of the data requirements of iPhone 's " polling " method of checking email , instead of blaming the network .
Before you iPhone prima donnas showed up , their network was fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear iPhone user,Switch to a true push system like BlackBerry, and use 1/10th of the data requirements of iPhone's "polling" method of checking email, instead of blaming the network.
Before you iPhone prima donnas showed up, their network was fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382584</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259583420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey AT&amp;T - GO FUCK yourselves!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey AT&amp;T - GO FUCK yourselves !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey AT&amp;T - GO FUCK yourselves!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384370</id>
	<title>Great.. now get rid of the minimum charge</title>
	<author>originalhack</author>
	<datestamp>1259595960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of applications really need to just send a few packets a month (alarms, metering, etc...) but all of the US wireless carriers insist on minimum charges of $30-$60/month for each distinct piece of hardware that sends data.   Funny how the carriers don't care to meter usage in a downward direction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of applications really need to just send a few packets a month ( alarms , metering , etc... ) but all of the US wireless carriers insist on minimum charges of $ 30- $ 60/month for each distinct piece of hardware that sends data .
Funny how the carriers do n't care to meter usage in a downward direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of applications really need to just send a few packets a month (alarms, metering, etc...) but all of the US wireless carriers insist on minimum charges of $30-$60/month for each distinct piece of hardware that sends data.
Funny how the carriers don't care to meter usage in a downward direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382358</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259582280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 3G (third generation) network is currently being replaced by the 4g (fourth generation)  network.  The infrastructure is already going up, the FCC has already cleared its usage, and it's going to provide data transfer rates of 3-6Mbit.  Your argument that "no, they can't build more bandwidth" is invalid.  You might be a very intelligent and capable person but you haven't bothered to do your homework and that suggests that you're intelligent but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lazy/.  You really need to look at what other countries have accomplished in terms of network infrastructure.  Start with Japan and Sweden.  There are some countries in the far east that have imposed monthly \_terabyte\_ usage caps.  Say it with me, "terabyte".  Meanwhile, non-corporate users here in the states couldn't download that much data in a month if they maxed out their connection every second of every day.  The notion that the largest phone company in the world can't accomplish what everyone else has already set out to do makes me laugh a cynical laugh.</p><p>I'll stand for AT&amp;T metering my bandwidth when they enter into a binding contract with me to lay a 100Mbit line to my house in the next 5 years.  They've got plenty of revenue coming in, they're just being greedy.</p><p>Here's what I'm saying.  Right now, AT&amp;T is crying poverty because, "waaaaaagh, too many people are using  the bandwidth we promised to them".  Wireless cell speeds are rapidly catching up to DSL speeds.  Give the 4g network a couple of years to mature after it's been installed.  Once they have some more competition, they'll magically discover fat reserves of cash and *poof* their network is going to get a grade-a facelift over night.</p><p>Also, they'll discover that those "heavy users" really aren't such a burden that they need to switch to metered usage when all their competitors are charging flat-rate.  That's when I want you to never flap your jaw ever again about economics driving what's going on here.  This is usury and greed, pure and simple</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 3G ( third generation ) network is currently being replaced by the 4g ( fourth generation ) network .
The infrastructure is already going up , the FCC has already cleared its usage , and it 's going to provide data transfer rates of 3-6Mbit .
Your argument that " no , they ca n't build more bandwidth " is invalid .
You might be a very intelligent and capable person but you have n't bothered to do your homework and that suggests that you 're intelligent but /lazy/ .
You really need to look at what other countries have accomplished in terms of network infrastructure .
Start with Japan and Sweden .
There are some countries in the far east that have imposed monthly \ _terabyte \ _ usage caps .
Say it with me , " terabyte " .
Meanwhile , non-corporate users here in the states could n't download that much data in a month if they maxed out their connection every second of every day .
The notion that the largest phone company in the world ca n't accomplish what everyone else has already set out to do makes me laugh a cynical laugh.I 'll stand for AT&amp;T metering my bandwidth when they enter into a binding contract with me to lay a 100Mbit line to my house in the next 5 years .
They 've got plenty of revenue coming in , they 're just being greedy.Here 's what I 'm saying .
Right now , AT&amp;T is crying poverty because , " waaaaaagh , too many people are using the bandwidth we promised to them " .
Wireless cell speeds are rapidly catching up to DSL speeds .
Give the 4g network a couple of years to mature after it 's been installed .
Once they have some more competition , they 'll magically discover fat reserves of cash and * poof * their network is going to get a grade-a facelift over night.Also , they 'll discover that those " heavy users " really are n't such a burden that they need to switch to metered usage when all their competitors are charging flat-rate .
That 's when I want you to never flap your jaw ever again about economics driving what 's going on here .
This is usury and greed , pure and simple</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 3G (third generation) network is currently being replaced by the 4g (fourth generation)  network.
The infrastructure is already going up, the FCC has already cleared its usage, and it's going to provide data transfer rates of 3-6Mbit.
Your argument that "no, they can't build more bandwidth" is invalid.
You might be a very intelligent and capable person but you haven't bothered to do your homework and that suggests that you're intelligent but /lazy/.
You really need to look at what other countries have accomplished in terms of network infrastructure.
Start with Japan and Sweden.
There are some countries in the far east that have imposed monthly \_terabyte\_ usage caps.
Say it with me, "terabyte".
Meanwhile, non-corporate users here in the states couldn't download that much data in a month if they maxed out their connection every second of every day.
The notion that the largest phone company in the world can't accomplish what everyone else has already set out to do makes me laugh a cynical laugh.I'll stand for AT&amp;T metering my bandwidth when they enter into a binding contract with me to lay a 100Mbit line to my house in the next 5 years.
They've got plenty of revenue coming in, they're just being greedy.Here's what I'm saying.
Right now, AT&amp;T is crying poverty because, "waaaaaagh, too many people are using  the bandwidth we promised to them".
Wireless cell speeds are rapidly catching up to DSL speeds.
Give the 4g network a couple of years to mature after it's been installed.
Once they have some more competition, they'll magically discover fat reserves of cash and *poof* their network is going to get a grade-a facelift over night.Also, they'll discover that those "heavy users" really aren't such a burden that they need to switch to metered usage when all their competitors are charging flat-rate.
That's when I want you to never flap your jaw ever again about economics driving what's going on here.
This is usury and greed, pure and simple</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381836</id>
	<title>Why is this a problem?</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1259579640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Data has shown that iPhone users average 400MB/month. This is far and away the most by any group. AT&amp;T charges $30/month for the iPhone data plan. That equates to over $60/GB but AT&amp;T and just about every other carrier charge that amount for 5GB/month data plans. Doesn't make sense does it. Carriers are claiming they can't make money at $60/GB data while they charge only $12/GB on data only plans.</p><p>I think we would all be giddy as school girls if they just charged everyone $12/GB for data making the average cost for data for  iPhone user drop from $30 to $6. But for some reason I doubt that will happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Data has shown that iPhone users average 400MB/month .
This is far and away the most by any group .
AT&amp;T charges $ 30/month for the iPhone data plan .
That equates to over $ 60/GB but AT&amp;T and just about every other carrier charge that amount for 5GB/month data plans .
Does n't make sense does it .
Carriers are claiming they ca n't make money at $ 60/GB data while they charge only $ 12/GB on data only plans.I think we would all be giddy as school girls if they just charged everyone $ 12/GB for data making the average cost for data for iPhone user drop from $ 30 to $ 6 .
But for some reason I doubt that will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data has shown that iPhone users average 400MB/month.
This is far and away the most by any group.
AT&amp;T charges $30/month for the iPhone data plan.
That equates to over $60/GB but AT&amp;T and just about every other carrier charge that amount for 5GB/month data plans.
Doesn't make sense does it.
Carriers are claiming they can't make money at $60/GB data while they charge only $12/GB on data only plans.I think we would all be giddy as school girls if they just charged everyone $12/GB for data making the average cost for data for  iPhone user drop from $30 to $6.
But for some reason I doubt that will happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382796</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Fremandn</author>
	<datestamp>1259584680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think people have a problem with them metering. People are just concerned that AT&amp;T will try and change the cost of their existing data plans. I would feel abused if AT&amp;T promised unlimited (without restriction) bandwidth and then decided that they couldn't meet this promise and cut or changed the terms of the agreement. A renegotiation would be acceptable. However, if the plan does not adequately account for the huge difference in usage patterns (usage encouraged by AT&amp;T) then AT&amp;T should be responsible and not the users who are simply using the device as it is capable of being used and as agreed to.</p><p>The tragedy of the commons as you put it was created by implicitly claiming a finite resource can be drawn upon without limit. The best compromise from my perspective would be to throttle bandwidth after X bytes of data are downloaded. This allows users to not be concerned over losing access to essential, but low bandwidth, services but prevents the network from being saturated. This would have been a sane plan, but doesn't advertise well. Unlimited makes sense, but in order for users to appreciate a cap they have to understand what a unit of data is and how much data various applications transfer. Additionally, application writers need to make sure their applications transfer minimal amounts of data making application writing difficult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think people have a problem with them metering .
People are just concerned that AT&amp;T will try and change the cost of their existing data plans .
I would feel abused if AT&amp;T promised unlimited ( without restriction ) bandwidth and then decided that they could n't meet this promise and cut or changed the terms of the agreement .
A renegotiation would be acceptable .
However , if the plan does not adequately account for the huge difference in usage patterns ( usage encouraged by AT&amp;T ) then AT&amp;T should be responsible and not the users who are simply using the device as it is capable of being used and as agreed to.The tragedy of the commons as you put it was created by implicitly claiming a finite resource can be drawn upon without limit .
The best compromise from my perspective would be to throttle bandwidth after X bytes of data are downloaded .
This allows users to not be concerned over losing access to essential , but low bandwidth , services but prevents the network from being saturated .
This would have been a sane plan , but does n't advertise well .
Unlimited makes sense , but in order for users to appreciate a cap they have to understand what a unit of data is and how much data various applications transfer .
Additionally , application writers need to make sure their applications transfer minimal amounts of data making application writing difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think people have a problem with them metering.
People are just concerned that AT&amp;T will try and change the cost of their existing data plans.
I would feel abused if AT&amp;T promised unlimited (without restriction) bandwidth and then decided that they couldn't meet this promise and cut or changed the terms of the agreement.
A renegotiation would be acceptable.
However, if the plan does not adequately account for the huge difference in usage patterns (usage encouraged by AT&amp;T) then AT&amp;T should be responsible and not the users who are simply using the device as it is capable of being used and as agreed to.The tragedy of the commons as you put it was created by implicitly claiming a finite resource can be drawn upon without limit.
The best compromise from my perspective would be to throttle bandwidth after X bytes of data are downloaded.
This allows users to not be concerned over losing access to essential, but low bandwidth, services but prevents the network from being saturated.
This would have been a sane plan, but doesn't advertise well.
Unlimited makes sense, but in order for users to appreciate a cap they have to understand what a unit of data is and how much data various applications transfer.
Additionally, application writers need to make sure their applications transfer minimal amounts of data making application writing difficult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383266</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1259587380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing what gets modded what on slashdot...</p><p>This is basically the SAME solution Comcast, etc. has been proposing for their cable systems, and the consensus is that it's "pure evil".  Now it's informative/insightful??</p><p>Let's be consistent, people!</p><p>Though I in fact AGREE with the poster's basic idea, and that the key problem is their statement of "unlimited" usage, their inability to provide it, and then their claims that anyone using it beyond their ability to provide is an "abuser".  Set a flat rate, state the usage limits CLEARLY in the contract, and then charge a CLEAR set price when that usage is exceeded.  It may be a crappy plan, but at least it's honest that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing what gets modded what on slashdot...This is basically the SAME solution Comcast , etc .
has been proposing for their cable systems , and the consensus is that it 's " pure evil " .
Now it 's informative/insightful ?
? Let 's be consistent , people ! Though I in fact AGREE with the poster 's basic idea , and that the key problem is their statement of " unlimited " usage , their inability to provide it , and then their claims that anyone using it beyond their ability to provide is an " abuser " .
Set a flat rate , state the usage limits CLEARLY in the contract , and then charge a CLEAR set price when that usage is exceeded .
It may be a crappy plan , but at least it 's honest that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing what gets modded what on slashdot...This is basically the SAME solution Comcast, etc.
has been proposing for their cable systems, and the consensus is that it's "pure evil".
Now it's informative/insightful?
?Let's be consistent, people!Though I in fact AGREE with the poster's basic idea, and that the key problem is their statement of "unlimited" usage, their inability to provide it, and then their claims that anyone using it beyond their ability to provide is an "abuser".
Set a flat rate, state the usage limits CLEARLY in the contract, and then charge a CLEAR set price when that usage is exceeded.
It may be a crappy plan, but at least it's honest that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381134</id>
	<title>Can they change the deal unilaterally?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they change the deal in such a significant way, can I leave without paying a termination fee?</p><p>I paid $300 for my iPhone, plus another $70 or $80 for Apple Care.  On top of that, I'd have to pay $175 (I think) to leave.  If I didn't have so much sunk into the phone, I would leave, because the data network simply doesn't work very well here in NYC.</p><p>If anyone is thinking about an iPhone, don't do it.  The device is amazing, incredibly well thought out, extremely useful, and a joy to use.  It's very easy to fall in love.  But AT&amp;T just doesn't hold up their end of the deal.</p><p>I have a Spring air card, and it works fine.  I use more data on it, as well.  And they never whine or claim I'm abusing them.  I think they're glad that I'm a customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they change the deal in such a significant way , can I leave without paying a termination fee ? I paid $ 300 for my iPhone , plus another $ 70 or $ 80 for Apple Care .
On top of that , I 'd have to pay $ 175 ( I think ) to leave .
If I did n't have so much sunk into the phone , I would leave , because the data network simply does n't work very well here in NYC.If anyone is thinking about an iPhone , do n't do it .
The device is amazing , incredibly well thought out , extremely useful , and a joy to use .
It 's very easy to fall in love .
But AT&amp;T just does n't hold up their end of the deal.I have a Spring air card , and it works fine .
I use more data on it , as well .
And they never whine or claim I 'm abusing them .
I think they 're glad that I 'm a customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they change the deal in such a significant way, can I leave without paying a termination fee?I paid $300 for my iPhone, plus another $70 or $80 for Apple Care.
On top of that, I'd have to pay $175 (I think) to leave.
If I didn't have so much sunk into the phone, I would leave, because the data network simply doesn't work very well here in NYC.If anyone is thinking about an iPhone, don't do it.
The device is amazing, incredibly well thought out, extremely useful, and a joy to use.
It's very easy to fall in love.
But AT&amp;T just doesn't hold up their end of the deal.I have a Spring air card, and it works fine.
I use more data on it, as well.
And they never whine or claim I'm abusing them.
I think they're glad that I'm a customer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383332</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1259587920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else's user experience is beyond me. </i></p><p>Because the carrier did not disclose that crap up front, but advertised "unlimited" internet access.  And because the carrier has not actually presented any evidence that the 3\% are adversely affecting anything.  And because the carrier's money-grabbing tactics in the past have naturally increased skepticism of the carrier's claims in this matter.</p><p>May I help you with anything else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else 's user experience is beyond me .
Because the carrier did not disclose that crap up front , but advertised " unlimited " internet access .
And because the carrier has not actually presented any evidence that the 3 \ % are adversely affecting anything .
And because the carrier 's money-grabbing tactics in the past have naturally increased skepticism of the carrier 's claims in this matter.May I help you with anything else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else's user experience is beyond me.
Because the carrier did not disclose that crap up front, but advertised "unlimited" internet access.
And because the carrier has not actually presented any evidence that the 3\% are adversely affecting anything.
And because the carrier's money-grabbing tactics in the past have naturally increased skepticism of the carrier's claims in this matter.May I help you with anything else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381342</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1259577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm really suprised they didn't try to blame this on jailbroken Iphones using tethering.  It seems exactly like the type of thing they would scapegoat it on.  They're trying to discouage both, and I could -actually- believe that's a -part- of it.</p><p>I'm guessing they so misjudged usage that even if they stamped out tethering they still would be over, so they're trying to charge even people who aren't tethering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really suprised they did n't try to blame this on jailbroken Iphones using tethering .
It seems exactly like the type of thing they would scapegoat it on .
They 're trying to discouage both , and I could -actually- believe that 's a -part- of it.I 'm guessing they so misjudged usage that even if they stamped out tethering they still would be over , so they 're trying to charge even people who are n't tethering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really suprised they didn't try to blame this on jailbroken Iphones using tethering.
It seems exactly like the type of thing they would scapegoat it on.
They're trying to discouage both, and I could -actually- believe that's a -part- of it.I'm guessing they so misjudged usage that even if they stamped out tethering they still would be over, so they're trying to charge even people who aren't tethering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30396316</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong story label</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1260447720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>AT&amp;T just doesn't grasp the idea of upgrading their network.</p> </div><p>They did recently create an iPhone "Mark the Spot" app to have people geotag bad service areas (they even realized that tagging within that deadzone wouldn't work).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T just does n't grasp the idea of upgrading their network .
They did recently create an iPhone " Mark the Spot " app to have people geotag bad service areas ( they even realized that tagging within that deadzone would n't work ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T just doesn't grasp the idea of upgrading their network.
They did recently create an iPhone "Mark the Spot" app to have people geotag bad service areas (they even realized that tagging within that deadzone wouldn't work).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381142</id>
	<title>Why use AT&amp;T?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=5371" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">ranked dead last in customer satisfaction</a> [zdnet.com] by Consumer Reports, AT&amp;T also illegally spied on American citizens and then <a href="http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">successfully lobbied to get themselves retroactive immunity</a> [eff.org].  Not only will they not be punished, but no one will ever find out the extent of their crimes.  Technicians have stumbled into <a href="http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">secret rooms</a> [wired.com] used to "shunt its customers' Internet traffic to data-mining equipment" for the NSA.</p><p>And don't believe bloated Luke Wilson--many iPhone users I know tell me they have shitty GSM coverage.</p><p>Meanwhile, Time Magazine just called the Verizon Droid phone the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379\_1944278,00.html" title="time.com" rel="nofollow">top gadget of the year</a> [time.com] and Droid has been <a href="http://alldroid.org/viewtopic.php?f=210&amp;t=567" title="alldroid.org" rel="nofollow">rooted</a> [alldroid.org], so you know it won't be long before a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyanogenMod" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">custom ROM</a> [wikipedia.org] comes our way.</p><p>And now AT&amp;T wants to charge for usage?  Well, their exclusive contract is almost over with Apple.  And if you ask me, not a moment too soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just ranked dead last in customer satisfaction [ zdnet.com ] by Consumer Reports , AT&amp;T also illegally spied on American citizens and then successfully lobbied to get themselves retroactive immunity [ eff.org ] .
Not only will they not be punished , but no one will ever find out the extent of their crimes .
Technicians have stumbled into secret rooms [ wired.com ] used to " shunt its customers ' Internet traffic to data-mining equipment " for the NSA.And do n't believe bloated Luke Wilson--many iPhone users I know tell me they have shitty GSM coverage.Meanwhile , Time Magazine just called the Verizon Droid phone the top gadget of the year [ time.com ] and Droid has been rooted [ alldroid.org ] , so you know it wo n't be long before a custom ROM [ wikipedia.org ] comes our way.And now AT&amp;T wants to charge for usage ?
Well , their exclusive contract is almost over with Apple .
And if you ask me , not a moment too soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just ranked dead last in customer satisfaction [zdnet.com] by Consumer Reports, AT&amp;T also illegally spied on American citizens and then successfully lobbied to get themselves retroactive immunity [eff.org].
Not only will they not be punished, but no one will ever find out the extent of their crimes.
Technicians have stumbled into secret rooms [wired.com] used to "shunt its customers' Internet traffic to data-mining equipment" for the NSA.And don't believe bloated Luke Wilson--many iPhone users I know tell me they have shitty GSM coverage.Meanwhile, Time Magazine just called the Verizon Droid phone the top gadget of the year [time.com] and Droid has been rooted [alldroid.org], so you know it won't be long before a custom ROM [wikipedia.org] comes our way.And now AT&amp;T wants to charge for usage?
Well, their exclusive contract is almost over with Apple.
And if you ask me, not a moment too soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382758</id>
	<title>there's crap on all that</title>
	<author>swschrad</author>
	<datestamp>1259584500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the amount of money some folks pay for the "golden tether" is just ludicrous.</p><p>they sell the blinkin' magic and charge an extra $50 a month to use it, folks, the fee is already paid.</p><p>maybe their business model is flawed, in which case ATT mobility may be headed to the dumpster... or they will antagonize all the iPhone fanbois and lose their customer base.</p><p>the present high price of poker in the magi-phone category is why I don't, and won't, have one on my own dime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the amount of money some folks pay for the " golden tether " is just ludicrous.they sell the blinkin ' magic and charge an extra $ 50 a month to use it , folks , the fee is already paid.maybe their business model is flawed , in which case ATT mobility may be headed to the dumpster... or they will antagonize all the iPhone fanbois and lose their customer base.the present high price of poker in the magi-phone category is why I do n't , and wo n't , have one on my own dime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the amount of money some folks pay for the "golden tether" is just ludicrous.they sell the blinkin' magic and charge an extra $50 a month to use it, folks, the fee is already paid.maybe their business model is flawed, in which case ATT mobility may be headed to the dumpster... or they will antagonize all the iPhone fanbois and lose their customer base.the present high price of poker in the magi-phone category is why I don't, and won't, have one on my own dime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381352</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>TehCable</author>
	<datestamp>1259577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Claim:  3\% of users consume 40\% of bandwidth.</p></div><p>Uh... should this statistic be shocking?  At any given point in time, if you isolate out the top 3\% of users, how much of the bandwidth SHOULD they be using?  Should it be closer to 3\%?  That would mean everybody is using the exact same amount of data.  All this statistic says is that data usage is not evenly distributed, but we're talking about a packet switched network.  At no point in time does a packet switched network EXPECT equal usage of bandwidth.  If they expected bandwidth to be used evenly across all users at all times, they would have built a circuit switched network.  At any given point in time, most connections are just idling.  Why don't they just release a statistic that reads "99\% of network bandwidth is consumed by active connections."  How about a billing plan where you pay for unlimited data, but if you don't use it, they'll refund your money?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Claim : 3 \ % of users consume 40 \ % of bandwidth.Uh... should this statistic be shocking ?
At any given point in time , if you isolate out the top 3 \ % of users , how much of the bandwidth SHOULD they be using ?
Should it be closer to 3 \ % ?
That would mean everybody is using the exact same amount of data .
All this statistic says is that data usage is not evenly distributed , but we 're talking about a packet switched network .
At no point in time does a packet switched network EXPECT equal usage of bandwidth .
If they expected bandwidth to be used evenly across all users at all times , they would have built a circuit switched network .
At any given point in time , most connections are just idling .
Why do n't they just release a statistic that reads " 99 \ % of network bandwidth is consumed by active connections .
" How about a billing plan where you pay for unlimited data , but if you do n't use it , they 'll refund your money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Claim:  3\% of users consume 40\% of bandwidth.Uh... should this statistic be shocking?
At any given point in time, if you isolate out the top 3\% of users, how much of the bandwidth SHOULD they be using?
Should it be closer to 3\%?
That would mean everybody is using the exact same amount of data.
All this statistic says is that data usage is not evenly distributed, but we're talking about a packet switched network.
At no point in time does a packet switched network EXPECT equal usage of bandwidth.
If they expected bandwidth to be used evenly across all users at all times, they would have built a circuit switched network.
At any given point in time, most connections are just idling.
Why don't they just release a statistic that reads "99\% of network bandwidth is consumed by active connections.
"  How about a billing plan where you pay for unlimited data, but if you don't use it, they'll refund your money?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381708</id>
	<title>Now we see the our government get involved</title>
	<author>gsgriffin</author>
	<datestamp>1259579040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Internet by cell phone is becoming viewed as a right.  In the US, the longer we have a service or something more and more people use, eventually people see it as a right to their existence in the US.  <br> <br>Soon will come the time when our senators will tell us that too many people in the US are unable to get affordable internet at reasonable and competitive prices.  We can then look forward to a new government agency that will help bring the Internet to everyone in the country via their cell phone...and of course, only the rich in America will have to pay for it.<br> <br>Come on!!!  Let's stop being spoiled brats and simply go to the services that treat us the way we want and get what we can afford.  If we can't afford it, then spend your wasted hours without internet thinking about the 2 billion people in this world that live on less than $2/day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet by cell phone is becoming viewed as a right .
In the US , the longer we have a service or something more and more people use , eventually people see it as a right to their existence in the US .
Soon will come the time when our senators will tell us that too many people in the US are unable to get affordable internet at reasonable and competitive prices .
We can then look forward to a new government agency that will help bring the Internet to everyone in the country via their cell phone...and of course , only the rich in America will have to pay for it .
Come on ! ! !
Let 's stop being spoiled brats and simply go to the services that treat us the way we want and get what we can afford .
If we ca n't afford it , then spend your wasted hours without internet thinking about the 2 billion people in this world that live on less than $ 2/day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet by cell phone is becoming viewed as a right.
In the US, the longer we have a service or something more and more people use, eventually people see it as a right to their existence in the US.
Soon will come the time when our senators will tell us that too many people in the US are unable to get affordable internet at reasonable and competitive prices.
We can then look forward to a new government agency that will help bring the Internet to everyone in the country via their cell phone...and of course, only the rich in America will have to pay for it.
Come on!!!
Let's stop being spoiled brats and simply go to the services that treat us the way we want and get what we can afford.
If we can't afford it, then spend your wasted hours without internet thinking about the 2 billion people in this world that live on less than $2/day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381456</id>
	<title>A reasonable cost would be 1/20th current costs</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1259577960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since that is what people with faster bandwidth in Japan, South Korea, and the EU pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since that is what people with faster bandwidth in Japan , South Korea , and the EU pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since that is what people with faster bandwidth in Japan, South Korea, and the EU pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381060</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous Psychopath</author>
	<datestamp>1259576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's funny to think that USA should be the best nation with technology and infrastructure, but still your internet connections suck this much.</p></div><p>By any rational standard the USA is far from the best nation in terms of communications infrastructure. I'm not sure who is, but Japan comes to mind. The USA is probably in the top 10\% somewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny to think that USA should be the best nation with technology and infrastructure , but still your internet connections suck this much.By any rational standard the USA is far from the best nation in terms of communications infrastructure .
I 'm not sure who is , but Japan comes to mind .
The USA is probably in the top 10 \ % somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny to think that USA should be the best nation with technology and infrastructure, but still your internet connections suck this much.By any rational standard the USA is far from the best nation in terms of communications infrastructure.
I'm not sure who is, but Japan comes to mind.
The USA is probably in the top 10\% somewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382768</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>kenshin33</author>
	<datestamp>1259584500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and that's again a nice (sense the sarcasm here) to milk people like the cows they are taken for.
transforming a very high  potential income into a less steady one  (win - win).
as they did with charging for incoming SMSs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and that 's again a nice ( sense the sarcasm here ) to milk people like the cows they are taken for .
transforming a very high potential income into a less steady one ( win - win ) .
as they did with charging for incoming SMSs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and that's again a nice (sense the sarcasm here) to milk people like the cows they are taken for.
transforming a very high  potential income into a less steady one  (win - win).
as they did with charging for incoming SMSs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381718</id>
	<title>usage based fees...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey AT&amp;T and Comcast....  Can you also make my cell phone plan, my land line plan, and cable plan all charged on what is used?</p><p>For instance...  if i only use 150 minutes in a month on my cell phone, can you charge me just for that?<br>If I only watch 5 cable channels, can you charge me 5/1000 (or however many channels provided) of my normal cost?  What about if i only watch for an hour a day instead of 24?</p><p>If i have a land line, can you cut my cost to $0 if it's only for emergency purposes and really never use it?</p><p>Or would that cut too much into your profit margin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey AT&amp;T and Comcast.... Can you also make my cell phone plan , my land line plan , and cable plan all charged on what is used ? For instance... if i only use 150 minutes in a month on my cell phone , can you charge me just for that ? If I only watch 5 cable channels , can you charge me 5/1000 ( or however many channels provided ) of my normal cost ?
What about if i only watch for an hour a day instead of 24 ? If i have a land line , can you cut my cost to $ 0 if it 's only for emergency purposes and really never use it ? Or would that cut too much into your profit margin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey AT&amp;T and Comcast....  Can you also make my cell phone plan, my land line plan, and cable plan all charged on what is used?For instance...  if i only use 150 minutes in a month on my cell phone, can you charge me just for that?If I only watch 5 cable channels, can you charge me 5/1000 (or however many channels provided) of my normal cost?
What about if i only watch for an hour a day instead of 24?If i have a land line, can you cut my cost to $0 if it's only for emergency purposes and really never use it?Or would that cut too much into your profit margin?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383956</id>
	<title>Verizon iPhone</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1259592180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At&amp;t shouldn't worry about "over usage" of iPhone users.  When other carriers get the iPhone, there will be a drove of iPhone users leaving at&amp;t, at least if you gauge the ticked off iPhone users on the at&amp;t users forums.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At&amp;t should n't worry about " over usage " of iPhone users .
When other carriers get the iPhone , there will be a drove of iPhone users leaving at&amp;t , at least if you gauge the ticked off iPhone users on the at&amp;t users forums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At&amp;t shouldn't worry about "over usage" of iPhone users.
When other carriers get the iPhone, there will be a drove of iPhone users leaving at&amp;t, at least if you gauge the ticked off iPhone users on the at&amp;t users forums.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381888</id>
	<title>Strategically, this cannot be a good idea.</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1259579880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not a good decision to try and convince your users to use your service less.  AT&amp;T may want to re-think this, as their heaviest users are possibly also the most loyal, least price-sensitive, and more likely to upgrade.</p><p>Then again, if ditching 3\% of your users gives you a 40\% capacity gain, the choice is obvious.  They are gone.</p><p>But this is about more than just bytes.  If there are geographic concentrations of heavy users, then billing is a way to smite those who are causing others some pain.  It sure is easier than managing your network correctly, or expanding capacity, or getting the lower-volume users to pony up more money for nothing.</p><p>I'll be watching to see how AT&amp;T can convince users to use less.</p><p>Of course, this is the beginning of the net neutrality fight on cell networks.  Expect AT&amp;T to start blaming content providers for making such attractive nuisances.  Then the phone manufacturers for making such demanding devices.</p><p>Except for Apple. They will be blameless, since AT&amp;T sees them as the source of revenue that makes it all worthwhile.</p><p>Pathetique.  I wonder how many executives at AT&amp;T remember the Sprint <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0925309620070709" title="reuters.com">debacle?</a> [reuters.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not a good decision to try and convince your users to use your service less .
AT&amp;T may want to re-think this , as their heaviest users are possibly also the most loyal , least price-sensitive , and more likely to upgrade.Then again , if ditching 3 \ % of your users gives you a 40 \ % capacity gain , the choice is obvious .
They are gone.But this is about more than just bytes .
If there are geographic concentrations of heavy users , then billing is a way to smite those who are causing others some pain .
It sure is easier than managing your network correctly , or expanding capacity , or getting the lower-volume users to pony up more money for nothing.I 'll be watching to see how AT&amp;T can convince users to use less.Of course , this is the beginning of the net neutrality fight on cell networks .
Expect AT&amp;T to start blaming content providers for making such attractive nuisances .
Then the phone manufacturers for making such demanding devices.Except for Apple .
They will be blameless , since AT&amp;T sees them as the source of revenue that makes it all worthwhile.Pathetique .
I wonder how many executives at AT&amp;T remember the Sprint debacle ?
[ reuters.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not a good decision to try and convince your users to use your service less.
AT&amp;T may want to re-think this, as their heaviest users are possibly also the most loyal, least price-sensitive, and more likely to upgrade.Then again, if ditching 3\% of your users gives you a 40\% capacity gain, the choice is obvious.
They are gone.But this is about more than just bytes.
If there are geographic concentrations of heavy users, then billing is a way to smite those who are causing others some pain.
It sure is easier than managing your network correctly, or expanding capacity, or getting the lower-volume users to pony up more money for nothing.I'll be watching to see how AT&amp;T can convince users to use less.Of course, this is the beginning of the net neutrality fight on cell networks.
Expect AT&amp;T to start blaming content providers for making such attractive nuisances.
Then the phone manufacturers for making such demanding devices.Except for Apple.
They will be blameless, since AT&amp;T sees them as the source of revenue that makes it all worthwhile.Pathetique.
I wonder how many executives at AT&amp;T remember the Sprint debacle?
[reuters.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30386908</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1260452160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, its kinda like how in my old house, I pay a few dollars a month for 60 amp service to my house, but the majority of the bill is my actual usage.  If 60A isn't enough, I can get a bigger "pipe" but it gets much pricier.. Just become I have 60 Amps available to me, doesn't mean I should be using 60 amps 24/7.  In fact, if I were to use 60A all the time, and a few neighbours did the same, it would cause brownouts.</p><p>I have no problem with usage based pricing for bandwidth, as long as its treated like a utility...  Don't block crap or tell me what to use it for, make the basic connection fee dirt cheap, and reasonable bandwidth rates.  Oh, and most importantly, allow me to see, instantaneously, what my consumptions is for the billing cycle.. (just like I can look at my power meter)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , its kinda like how in my old house , I pay a few dollars a month for 60 amp service to my house , but the majority of the bill is my actual usage .
If 60A is n't enough , I can get a bigger " pipe " but it gets much pricier.. Just become I have 60 Amps available to me , does n't mean I should be using 60 amps 24/7 .
In fact , if I were to use 60A all the time , and a few neighbours did the same , it would cause brownouts.I have no problem with usage based pricing for bandwidth , as long as its treated like a utility... Do n't block crap or tell me what to use it for , make the basic connection fee dirt cheap , and reasonable bandwidth rates .
Oh , and most importantly , allow me to see , instantaneously , what my consumptions is for the billing cycle.. ( just like I can look at my power meter )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, its kinda like how in my old house, I pay a few dollars a month for 60 amp service to my house, but the majority of the bill is my actual usage.
If 60A isn't enough, I can get a bigger "pipe" but it gets much pricier.. Just become I have 60 Amps available to me, doesn't mean I should be using 60 amps 24/7.
In fact, if I were to use 60A all the time, and a few neighbours did the same, it would cause brownouts.I have no problem with usage based pricing for bandwidth, as long as its treated like a utility...  Don't block crap or tell me what to use it for, make the basic connection fee dirt cheap, and reasonable bandwidth rates.
Oh, and most importantly, allow me to see, instantaneously, what my consumptions is for the billing cycle.. (just like I can look at my power meter)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384978</id>
	<title>Re:Should electricity be charged per-watt?</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1259602620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah. They charge usage (kWh, Joule, whatever) not a flat rate based on the fact that you house has 120 ampere service.<br> <br>On the other hand, if your house only had 15 amp service, and you couldn't use the microwave, fridge, and TV at the same time, I bet you would want a discount.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
They charge usage ( kWh , Joule , whatever ) not a flat rate based on the fact that you house has 120 ampere service .
On the other hand , if your house only had 15 amp service , and you could n't use the microwave , fridge , and TV at the same time , I bet you would want a discount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
They charge usage (kWh, Joule, whatever) not a flat rate based on the fact that you house has 120 ampere service.
On the other hand, if your house only had 15 amp service, and you couldn't use the microwave, fridge, and TV at the same time, I bet you would want a discount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30387410</id>
	<title>They already do this...</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1260456420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've been doing this ever since I can remember. If you buy certain phones, you can get the "unlimited" MediaNet for $15/mo... If you have a PDA-type Phone, they make you buy a more expensive plan that, last I checked, did not have an unlimited option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been doing this ever since I can remember .
If you buy certain phones , you can get the " unlimited " MediaNet for $ 15/mo... If you have a PDA-type Phone , they make you buy a more expensive plan that , last I checked , did not have an unlimited option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been doing this ever since I can remember.
If you buy certain phones, you can get the "unlimited" MediaNet for $15/mo... If you have a PDA-type Phone, they make you buy a more expensive plan that, last I checked, did not have an unlimited option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381292</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>jargon82</author>
	<datestamp>1259577300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>-100\%. Bandwidth wants to be free!</htmltext>
<tokenext>-100 \ % .
Bandwidth wants to be free !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-100\%.
Bandwidth wants to be free!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382682</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1259584020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  grandma (that only uses a data connection to check her email once a day)</p> </div><p>If "grandma" is really the typical user that the network is designed for, they should just shut the fucking thing down, because it's not worth $50/month they're charging her, and we already have once-a-day postal deliveries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>grandma ( that only uses a data connection to check her email once a day ) If " grandma " is really the typical user that the network is designed for , they should just shut the fucking thing down , because it 's not worth $ 50/month they 're charging her , and we already have once-a-day postal deliveries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  grandma (that only uses a data connection to check her email once a day) If "grandma" is really the typical user that the network is designed for, they should just shut the fucking thing down, because it's not worth $50/month they're charging her, and we already have once-a-day postal deliveries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381952</id>
	<title>Dear customer -</title>
	<author>Lead Butthead</author>
	<datestamp>1259580300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear customer - To remain competitive in terms of salary and bonuses for our officers, we must ever increasingly find new ways to milk you, thereby providing our shareholders value to justify diverting our ever larger lump of our income to their compensation packages. As such it is much more expedient to change the pricing model instead of improving our network. The former instantaneously increase our income with near zero cost to us while the latter would cost us dearly in the short term, and is sure to draw the wrath of our shareholders and thus will most certainly be detrimental to the compensation packages for our officers. As such you can surely see the obvious choice of the two options.</p><p>We like to also take this opportunity to thank you for having taking it from us in the rear. If you desire a more pleasant experience using our service, may we advice that you bring your own Vaseline. If you do not have access to a supply of Vaseline, we will be happy to provide them at additional cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear customer - To remain competitive in terms of salary and bonuses for our officers , we must ever increasingly find new ways to milk you , thereby providing our shareholders value to justify diverting our ever larger lump of our income to their compensation packages .
As such it is much more expedient to change the pricing model instead of improving our network .
The former instantaneously increase our income with near zero cost to us while the latter would cost us dearly in the short term , and is sure to draw the wrath of our shareholders and thus will most certainly be detrimental to the compensation packages for our officers .
As such you can surely see the obvious choice of the two options.We like to also take this opportunity to thank you for having taking it from us in the rear .
If you desire a more pleasant experience using our service , may we advice that you bring your own Vaseline .
If you do not have access to a supply of Vaseline , we will be happy to provide them at additional cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear customer - To remain competitive in terms of salary and bonuses for our officers, we must ever increasingly find new ways to milk you, thereby providing our shareholders value to justify diverting our ever larger lump of our income to their compensation packages.
As such it is much more expedient to change the pricing model instead of improving our network.
The former instantaneously increase our income with near zero cost to us while the latter would cost us dearly in the short term, and is sure to draw the wrath of our shareholders and thus will most certainly be detrimental to the compensation packages for our officers.
As such you can surely see the obvious choice of the two options.We like to also take this opportunity to thank you for having taking it from us in the rear.
If you desire a more pleasant experience using our service, may we advice that you bring your own Vaseline.
If you do not have access to a supply of Vaseline, we will be happy to provide them at additional cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30452974</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>\_0rm\_</author>
	<datestamp>1260887880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck adapting to our users, LET'S CHARGE THE SHIT OUT OF THEM! Yeah, way to go AT&amp;T.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck adapting to our users , LET 'S CHARGE THE SHIT OUT OF THEM !
Yeah , way to go AT&amp;T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck adapting to our users, LET'S CHARGE THE SHIT OUT OF THEM!
Yeah, way to go AT&amp;T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30397532</id>
	<title>Nix the apps with ads</title>
	<author>gottabeme</author>
	<datestamp>1260456180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about putting a stop to the stupid apps that have ads in them?  (Sure, it's my choice to not use them, but a few actually useful ones do have them.  *sigh*)  I can't believe with these tiny screens and tiny batteries and limited bandwidth that we (and "they") are putting up with apps that suck up my battery to suck up their bandwidth to fill up my screen with a stupid advertisement that I will NEVER, EVER tap on.  You know what?  Even if I was interested in their product (which I'm not, and don't have disposable income now), I wouldn't buy anything from them on principle because they're contributing to the problem by buying ads that end up sucking up my phone's limited resources!  Grr!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about putting a stop to the stupid apps that have ads in them ?
( Sure , it 's my choice to not use them , but a few actually useful ones do have them .
* sigh * ) I ca n't believe with these tiny screens and tiny batteries and limited bandwidth that we ( and " they " ) are putting up with apps that suck up my battery to suck up their bandwidth to fill up my screen with a stupid advertisement that I will NEVER , EVER tap on .
You know what ?
Even if I was interested in their product ( which I 'm not , and do n't have disposable income now ) , I would n't buy anything from them on principle because they 're contributing to the problem by buying ads that end up sucking up my phone 's limited resources !
Grr !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about putting a stop to the stupid apps that have ads in them?
(Sure, it's my choice to not use them, but a few actually useful ones do have them.
*sigh*)  I can't believe with these tiny screens and tiny batteries and limited bandwidth that we (and "they") are putting up with apps that suck up my battery to suck up their bandwidth to fill up my screen with a stupid advertisement that I will NEVER, EVER tap on.
You know what?
Even if I was interested in their product (which I'm not, and don't have disposable income now), I wouldn't buy anything from them on principle because they're contributing to the problem by buying ads that end up sucking up my phone's limited resources!
Grr!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382402</id>
	<title>34GB per day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259582460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/12/09/1643237/Each-American-Consumed-34-Gigabytes-Per-Day-In-08" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">... sounds like a good place to start.</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... sounds like a good place to start .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... sounds like a good place to start.
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384748</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1259599860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, plenty of people simply don't have the budget to deal with a shock month or two over the course of a year, even if it averages out to being cheaper overall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , plenty of people simply do n't have the budget to deal with a shock month or two over the course of a year , even if it averages out to being cheaper overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, plenty of people simply don't have the budget to deal with a shock month or two over the course of a year, even if it averages out to being cheaper overall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222</id>
	<title>What's this line on my iPhone bill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259577000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear AT&amp;T,</p><p>I could've sworn I remembered seeing something on my monthly iPhone bill... Ah, there it is.</p><p>"  DATA PLAN IPHONE      12/02-01/01            30.00      30.00<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Data Unlimited     12/02-01/01         0.00     0.00<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Includes:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATA ACCESS "</p><p>See, AT&amp;T? It's right where <i>you</i> printed it. Unlimited data for a predetermined cost.</p><p>Now, AT&amp;T, if you would please GTFO of here with this talk about billing me based on usage or prepare for me to take advantage of change in ToS so I can get out of my contract without penalty.</p><p>Best regards,<br>A guy who's looking forward to his contract ending so he can get an Android on a network that hopefully sucks less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear AT&amp;T,I could 've sworn I remembered seeing something on my monthly iPhone bill... Ah , there it is .
" DATA PLAN IPHONE 12/02-01/01 30.00 30.00     Data Unlimited 12/02-01/01 0.00 0.00         Includes :         DATA ACCESS " See , AT&amp;T ?
It 's right where you printed it .
Unlimited data for a predetermined cost.Now , AT&amp;T , if you would please GTFO of here with this talk about billing me based on usage or prepare for me to take advantage of change in ToS so I can get out of my contract without penalty.Best regards,A guy who 's looking forward to his contract ending so he can get an Android on a network that hopefully sucks less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear AT&amp;T,I could've sworn I remembered seeing something on my monthly iPhone bill... Ah, there it is.
"  DATA PLAN IPHONE      12/02-01/01            30.00      30.00
    Data Unlimited     12/02-01/01         0.00     0.00
        Includes:
        DATA ACCESS "See, AT&amp;T?
It's right where you printed it.
Unlimited data for a predetermined cost.Now, AT&amp;T, if you would please GTFO of here with this talk about billing me based on usage or prepare for me to take advantage of change in ToS so I can get out of my contract without penalty.Best regards,A guy who's looking forward to his contract ending so he can get an Android on a network that hopefully sucks less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381552</id>
	<title>Which character?</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1259578320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which character of "3G" did AT&amp;T not understand when they agreed to offer a product by that name?<p>Meanwhile, this AT&amp;T network bog-down caused me -- and I'm assuming others as well -- to switch from other carriers to T-Mobile because of their Fave Five plan that allows unlimited calling to a specified five numbers.  One can be "in-network" on AT&amp;T without suffering the AT&amp;T network on both ends of the connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which character of " 3G " did AT&amp;T not understand when they agreed to offer a product by that name ? Meanwhile , this AT&amp;T network bog-down caused me -- and I 'm assuming others as well -- to switch from other carriers to T-Mobile because of their Fave Five plan that allows unlimited calling to a specified five numbers .
One can be " in-network " on AT&amp;T without suffering the AT&amp;T network on both ends of the connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which character of "3G" did AT&amp;T not understand when they agreed to offer a product by that name?Meanwhile, this AT&amp;T network bog-down caused me -- and I'm assuming others as well -- to switch from other carriers to T-Mobile because of their Fave Five plan that allows unlimited calling to a specified five numbers.
One can be "in-network" on AT&amp;T without suffering the AT&amp;T network on both ends of the connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381658</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>urulokion</author>
	<datestamp>1259578800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth.<br>If every customer used all of the full bandwidth of their connection, the ISP's network would slow to a craw or worse. ISPs advertise all of these huge download speeds and how great they are. But they punish you behind the scenes if anyone dares to actually use it.</p><p>Mobile Broadband Providers have a trickier problem in that individual cell sites/towers are the bandwidth choke points. The amount of bandwith they can process is fixed by the limits of the technology (and also the size of the landline pipes from the cell tower back to the MTSO). Mobile provider can't bump up the amount of bandwith with a huge infrastructure investment. And the bandwidth usage is dynamic because people are moving in and out of cell tower coverage areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth.If every customer used all of the full bandwidth of their connection , the ISP 's network would slow to a craw or worse .
ISPs advertise all of these huge download speeds and how great they are .
But they punish you behind the scenes if anyone dares to actually use it.Mobile Broadband Providers have a trickier problem in that individual cell sites/towers are the bandwidth choke points .
The amount of bandwith they can process is fixed by the limits of the technology ( and also the size of the landline pipes from the cell tower back to the MTSO ) .
Mobile provider ca n't bump up the amount of bandwith with a huge infrastructure investment .
And the bandwidth usage is dynamic because people are moving in and out of cell tower coverage areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth.If every customer used all of the full bandwidth of their connection, the ISP's network would slow to a craw or worse.
ISPs advertise all of these huge download speeds and how great they are.
But they punish you behind the scenes if anyone dares to actually use it.Mobile Broadband Providers have a trickier problem in that individual cell sites/towers are the bandwidth choke points.
The amount of bandwith they can process is fixed by the limits of the technology (and also the size of the landline pipes from the cell tower back to the MTSO).
Mobile provider can't bump up the amount of bandwith with a huge infrastructure investment.
And the bandwidth usage is dynamic because people are moving in and out of cell tower coverage areas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381644</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1259578740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.</p></div><p>Well ultimately their intent is not just to make the 3\% pay more for the extra usage, but to make *everyone* pay more.  It's just that they need an excuse to do it, and blaming other users for over-using the service gives them that excuse.  These cell carriers want to advertise data services, they want to charge for data services, but they don't want to actually provide those services unless you pay extra.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they can identify 3 \ % of people are using 40 \ % , then by all means put a 'cap ' on the fixed price service that * does n't * affect the 97 \ % of normal users.Well ultimately their intent is not just to make the 3 \ % pay more for the extra usage , but to make * everyone * pay more .
It 's just that they need an excuse to do it , and blaming other users for over-using the service gives them that excuse .
These cell carriers want to advertise data services , they want to charge for data services , but they do n't want to actually provide those services unless you pay extra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.Well ultimately their intent is not just to make the 3\% pay more for the extra usage, but to make *everyone* pay more.
It's just that they need an excuse to do it, and blaming other users for over-using the service gives them that excuse.
These cell carriers want to advertise data services, they want to charge for data services, but they don't want to actually provide those services unless you pay extra.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380990</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>kobaz</author>
	<datestamp>1259576040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are still plenty of providers that charge by the MB.  But maybe those are just US providers.  For web hosting and dedicated/colocated servers, many plans will say 1500GB per month allowance and then something ridiculous like $3/GB overage fees.</p><p>95th percentile billing is generally standard for good colocation.  And probably should be the standard for all bandwidth billing (if it's not unmetered/unlimited)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still plenty of providers that charge by the MB .
But maybe those are just US providers .
For web hosting and dedicated/colocated servers , many plans will say 1500GB per month allowance and then something ridiculous like $ 3/GB overage fees.95th percentile billing is generally standard for good colocation .
And probably should be the standard for all bandwidth billing ( if it 's not unmetered/unlimited )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still plenty of providers that charge by the MB.
But maybe those are just US providers.
For web hosting and dedicated/colocated servers, many plans will say 1500GB per month allowance and then something ridiculous like $3/GB overage fees.95th percentile billing is generally standard for good colocation.
And probably should be the standard for all bandwidth billing (if it's not unmetered/unlimited)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382164</id>
	<title>Re:What's this line on my iPhone bill?</title>
	<author>Ikkyu</author>
	<datestamp>1259581260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget the getting out of the contract, sue in small claims for deceptive marketing tactics, ask for an injunction baring them from changing their TOS, and have the summons delivered to the local company store that way you will probably win a default judgment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget the getting out of the contract , sue in small claims for deceptive marketing tactics , ask for an injunction baring them from changing their TOS , and have the summons delivered to the local company store that way you will probably win a default judgment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget the getting out of the contract, sue in small claims for deceptive marketing tactics, ask for an injunction baring them from changing their TOS, and have the summons delivered to the local company store that way you will probably win a default judgment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382634</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259583720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a very smart point. Will the advertisers pay for their own ads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a very smart point .
Will the advertisers pay for their own ads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a very smart point.
Will the advertisers pay for their own ads?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383506</id>
	<title>Why not give people what they want?</title>
	<author>webdog314</author>
	<datestamp>1259589000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am constantly blown away that the telcos seem to have forgotten one basic rule of good business: give the people what they want. Mind you, I'm talking about the idea that it's better to make your customers happy than it is to get the most profit out of them. Telcos have fallen into the idea that they must simply find ways in which to entice people to buy their expensive phones and data plans (ie:marketing), instead of turning it around and asking, what can we actually give to the customer that would make them happy to be with us? How many people would jump on the iPhone in a heartbeat if they simply said, you know what, we're going to give you bandwidth up to 5GB/mo. FOR FREE. It's part of the same basic plan. You buy the phone, you get the bandwidth. I know, I know... the contract subsidizes the hardware, but it you OWN the market share, who freaking cares! People are being nickel and dimed to death.  And they HATE IT. They HATE their carrier. Congratulations AT&amp;T, you have found the perfect way to make people despise you. Way to go! Your marketing department should be proud!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am constantly blown away that the telcos seem to have forgotten one basic rule of good business : give the people what they want .
Mind you , I 'm talking about the idea that it 's better to make your customers happy than it is to get the most profit out of them .
Telcos have fallen into the idea that they must simply find ways in which to entice people to buy their expensive phones and data plans ( ie : marketing ) , instead of turning it around and asking , what can we actually give to the customer that would make them happy to be with us ?
How many people would jump on the iPhone in a heartbeat if they simply said , you know what , we 're going to give you bandwidth up to 5GB/mo .
FOR FREE .
It 's part of the same basic plan .
You buy the phone , you get the bandwidth .
I know , I know... the contract subsidizes the hardware , but it you OWN the market share , who freaking cares !
People are being nickel and dimed to death .
And they HATE IT .
They HATE their carrier .
Congratulations AT&amp;T , you have found the perfect way to make people despise you .
Way to go !
Your marketing department should be proud !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am constantly blown away that the telcos seem to have forgotten one basic rule of good business: give the people what they want.
Mind you, I'm talking about the idea that it's better to make your customers happy than it is to get the most profit out of them.
Telcos have fallen into the idea that they must simply find ways in which to entice people to buy their expensive phones and data plans (ie:marketing), instead of turning it around and asking, what can we actually give to the customer that would make them happy to be with us?
How many people would jump on the iPhone in a heartbeat if they simply said, you know what, we're going to give you bandwidth up to 5GB/mo.
FOR FREE.
It's part of the same basic plan.
You buy the phone, you get the bandwidth.
I know, I know... the contract subsidizes the hardware, but it you OWN the market share, who freaking cares!
People are being nickel and dimed to death.
And they HATE IT.
They HATE their carrier.
Congratulations AT&amp;T, you have found the perfect way to make people despise you.
Way to go!
Your marketing department should be proud!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381056</id>
	<title>Look at what the other 97\% are missing out on!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather this will educate the rest what their phones might be capable of doing.  Everyone can stare at 3" screens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather this will educate the rest what their phones might be capable of doing .
Everyone can stare at 3 " screens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather this will educate the rest what their phones might be capable of doing.
Everyone can stare at 3" screens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381732</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1259579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use some 300-500mb a month of 3G data on my iphone.</p><p>The big question I have to ask if they charge per meg. can they block advertisers So I don't have to pay for things I don't want?  Usage based billing will kill the web advertising business.  As 30-40\% of a web sites download size is images and flash related to advertising if I am paying per meg i am not dbouleing my bill just for crap I am not interested in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use some 300-500mb a month of 3G data on my iphone.The big question I have to ask if they charge per meg .
can they block advertisers So I do n't have to pay for things I do n't want ?
Usage based billing will kill the web advertising business .
As 30-40 \ % of a web sites download size is images and flash related to advertising if I am paying per meg i am not dbouleing my bill just for crap I am not interested in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use some 300-500mb a month of 3G data on my iphone.The big question I have to ask if they charge per meg.
can they block advertisers So I don't have to pay for things I don't want?
Usage based billing will kill the web advertising business.
As 30-40\% of a web sites download size is images and flash related to advertising if I am paying per meg i am not dbouleing my bill just for crap I am not interested in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383050</id>
	<title>AU Telstra Big Pond's "Poverty Trap" pricing model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you can "thank" Australia's (then) gov't owned monopoly - Telstra "Big Pond" (ISP) for this "contribution" to the larger World's Internet markets.</p><p>This Aussie ISP still retains its $150 / GB "excess" usage (ie, above ISP allocated data quota), causing uncountable snarling in family homes and - for International students, studying in Australia - it has meant having to forego affordable access to Big Pond Cable &amp; ADSL, eg, in share-houses (the Aussie counterpart to frat- or sorority houses...?).</p><p>Even in its very recent plan / price announcement, Telstra's Big Pond -retained- this excessive "excess" usage fees... but -only- for its low-end plans (ie, the ones that naive Internet users, often on low-incomes try to get by on).</p><p>We call this obsolete fee Telstra Big Pond's "pverty trap" since anyone, who signs up, who's on a low income is very likely to be trapped by it into committing to paying al LOT more than they'd planned.</p><p>(Consider the case of a pensioner - eg, granny - who has the grandkids over for a weekend: "Oh, good, Nan, you have Internet, can we have a go? Puh-LEASE???" "Sure, go ahead, but don't look at porn." "Sure, Nan, we'll just get us a "Sound of Music" DVD to watch later tonight..."</p><p>In a coming month, granny has to pay an unexpectedly large Big Pond bill... and maybe forego some of the things that make her retirement sweet for 6 months. Thanks Telstra!)</p><p>I've met people who say they've received bills over $1,000.00 for a month's usage!</p><p>Folks, even though your Debt Collectors &amp; Bancruptcy Courts may enjoy more business, learn from the French and Swedes about Internet pricing:</p><p>Cf: <a href="http://free.tv/" title="free.tv" rel="nofollow">http://free.tv/</a> [free.tv] (unlimited phone / Internet / TV services, including a cool HD TV recorder / gateway (etc.) box for contract customers for about Au $50.00)</p><p>Track down prices for up to unlimited, symmetric 100 Mb/Sec Internet plans (3 to choose from - 10 / 10, 100 / 10 &amp; 100 / 100) from StockholmsStadnat for less each month.</p><p>I have NO DOUBTS that, in such places, there are far fewer quarrels over Internet usage, because no "bean counters" are ready to set alight the family's budgets, eg, with a massive "excess" usage bill.</p><p>France &amp; Sweden aren't perfect, but - if these unlimited Internet plans are any indication, they're doing much better than we Australian are, for their Internet saavy people.</p><p>The French go farther than the Swedes, ie, by making it easy for families to stay in-touch, by phone - all over France.</p><p>I have a lot of respect for both cultures!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you can " thank " Australia 's ( then ) gov't owned monopoly - Telstra " Big Pond " ( ISP ) for this " contribution " to the larger World 's Internet markets.This Aussie ISP still retains its $ 150 / GB " excess " usage ( ie , above ISP allocated data quota ) , causing uncountable snarling in family homes and - for International students , studying in Australia - it has meant having to forego affordable access to Big Pond Cable &amp; ADSL , eg , in share-houses ( the Aussie counterpart to frat- or sorority houses... ?
) .Even in its very recent plan / price announcement , Telstra 's Big Pond -retained- this excessive " excess " usage fees... but -only- for its low-end plans ( ie , the ones that naive Internet users , often on low-incomes try to get by on ) .We call this obsolete fee Telstra Big Pond 's " pverty trap " since anyone , who signs up , who 's on a low income is very likely to be trapped by it into committing to paying al LOT more than they 'd planned .
( Consider the case of a pensioner - eg , granny - who has the grandkids over for a weekend : " Oh , good , Nan , you have Internet , can we have a go ?
Puh-LEASE ? ? ? " " Sure , go ahead , but do n't look at porn .
" " Sure , Nan , we 'll just get us a " Sound of Music " DVD to watch later tonight... " In a coming month , granny has to pay an unexpectedly large Big Pond bill... and maybe forego some of the things that make her retirement sweet for 6 months .
Thanks Telstra !
) I 've met people who say they 've received bills over $ 1,000.00 for a month 's usage ! Folks , even though your Debt Collectors &amp; Bancruptcy Courts may enjoy more business , learn from the French and Swedes about Internet pricing : Cf : http : //free.tv/ [ free.tv ] ( unlimited phone / Internet / TV services , including a cool HD TV recorder / gateway ( etc .
) box for contract customers for about Au $ 50.00 ) Track down prices for up to unlimited , symmetric 100 Mb/Sec Internet plans ( 3 to choose from - 10 / 10 , 100 / 10 &amp; 100 / 100 ) from StockholmsStadnat for less each month.I have NO DOUBTS that , in such places , there are far fewer quarrels over Internet usage , because no " bean counters " are ready to set alight the family 's budgets , eg , with a massive " excess " usage bill.France &amp; Sweden are n't perfect , but - if these unlimited Internet plans are any indication , they 're doing much better than we Australian are , for their Internet saavy people.The French go farther than the Swedes , ie , by making it easy for families to stay in-touch , by phone - all over France.I have a lot of respect for both cultures !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you can "thank" Australia's (then) gov't owned monopoly - Telstra "Big Pond" (ISP) for this "contribution" to the larger World's Internet markets.This Aussie ISP still retains its $150 / GB "excess" usage (ie, above ISP allocated data quota), causing uncountable snarling in family homes and - for International students, studying in Australia - it has meant having to forego affordable access to Big Pond Cable &amp; ADSL, eg, in share-houses (the Aussie counterpart to frat- or sorority houses...?
).Even in its very recent plan / price announcement, Telstra's Big Pond -retained- this excessive "excess" usage fees... but -only- for its low-end plans (ie, the ones that naive Internet users, often on low-incomes try to get by on).We call this obsolete fee Telstra Big Pond's "pverty trap" since anyone, who signs up, who's on a low income is very likely to be trapped by it into committing to paying al LOT more than they'd planned.
(Consider the case of a pensioner - eg, granny - who has the grandkids over for a weekend: "Oh, good, Nan, you have Internet, can we have a go?
Puh-LEASE???" "Sure, go ahead, but don't look at porn.
" "Sure, Nan, we'll just get us a "Sound of Music" DVD to watch later tonight..."In a coming month, granny has to pay an unexpectedly large Big Pond bill... and maybe forego some of the things that make her retirement sweet for 6 months.
Thanks Telstra!
)I've met people who say they've received bills over $1,000.00 for a month's usage!Folks, even though your Debt Collectors &amp; Bancruptcy Courts may enjoy more business, learn from the French and Swedes about Internet pricing:Cf: http://free.tv/ [free.tv] (unlimited phone / Internet / TV services, including a cool HD TV recorder / gateway (etc.
) box for contract customers for about Au $50.00)Track down prices for up to unlimited, symmetric 100 Mb/Sec Internet plans (3 to choose from - 10 / 10, 100 / 10 &amp; 100 / 100) from StockholmsStadnat for less each month.I have NO DOUBTS that, in such places, there are far fewer quarrels over Internet usage, because no "bean counters" are ready to set alight the family's budgets, eg, with a massive "excess" usage bill.France &amp; Sweden aren't perfect, but - if these unlimited Internet plans are any indication, they're doing much better than we Australian are, for their Internet saavy people.The French go farther than the Swedes, ie, by making it easy for families to stay in-touch, by phone - all over France.I have a lot of respect for both cultures!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like they're targeting the iPhone, only from AT&amp;T.</p><p>Company with fanatical users (Apple) creates a product that is data-heavy. AT&amp;T must have seriously botched their usage projections, not bothered to do any, or figured they're just foist extra fees on their customers when it started to be a problem because they know anyone wanting an iPhone can't jump ship to a competitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like they 're targeting the iPhone , only from AT&amp;T.Company with fanatical users ( Apple ) creates a product that is data-heavy .
AT&amp;T must have seriously botched their usage projections , not bothered to do any , or figured they 're just foist extra fees on their customers when it started to be a problem because they know anyone wanting an iPhone ca n't jump ship to a competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like they're targeting the iPhone, only from AT&amp;T.Company with fanatical users (Apple) creates a product that is data-heavy.
AT&amp;T must have seriously botched their usage projections, not bothered to do any, or figured they're just foist extra fees on their customers when it started to be a problem because they know anyone wanting an iPhone can't jump ship to a competitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385326</id>
	<title>Charge me, and give me what im paying for.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1259607300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>isnt it THAT simple ? doing business i mean ? since the dawn of civilization ?</p><p>i pay you something, you give me the product. it HAS to be that way.</p><p>just charge me your unit of bandwidth and a percentage of profit per each unit i use, and make sure i get ALL the bandwith I PAY FOR. doing anything other than this is SCAMMING people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>isnt it THAT simple ?
doing business i mean ?
since the dawn of civilization ? i pay you something , you give me the product .
it HAS to be that way.just charge me your unit of bandwidth and a percentage of profit per each unit i use , and make sure i get ALL the bandwith I PAY FOR .
doing anything other than this is SCAMMING people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isnt it THAT simple ?
doing business i mean ?
since the dawn of civilization ?i pay you something, you give me the product.
it HAS to be that way.just charge me your unit of bandwidth and a percentage of profit per each unit i use, and make sure i get ALL the bandwith I PAY FOR.
doing anything other than this is SCAMMING people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382826</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>kenshin33</author>
	<datestamp>1259584860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point there, but in this world<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... why should they care.
BELL canada for instance wanted (and still wants) UBB one there DSL lines (wholesale and retail). in a throttled environment about 20\%  of the traffic is dropped (DROP rule in contrast of REJECT iptables wise, the peers are not informed that connection is not permitted) hence retransmitted a couple of times. you think that was included in their plan? Not a chance. so you end up paying for the consequences of their own equipment. So why should they care about 3rd parties ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point there , but in this world ... why should they care .
BELL canada for instance wanted ( and still wants ) UBB one there DSL lines ( wholesale and retail ) .
in a throttled environment about 20 \ % of the traffic is dropped ( DROP rule in contrast of REJECT iptables wise , the peers are not informed that connection is not permitted ) hence retransmitted a couple of times .
you think that was included in their plan ?
Not a chance .
so you end up paying for the consequences of their own equipment .
So why should they care about 3rd parties ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point there, but in this world ... why should they care.
BELL canada for instance wanted (and still wants) UBB one there DSL lines (wholesale and retail).
in a throttled environment about 20\%  of the traffic is dropped (DROP rule in contrast of REJECT iptables wise, the peers are not informed that connection is not permitted) hence retransmitted a couple of times.
you think that was included in their plan?
Not a chance.
so you end up paying for the consequences of their own equipment.
So why should they care about 3rd parties ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382580</id>
	<title>Joule = unit of work, byte != unit of work</title>
	<author>GuyFawkes</author>
	<datestamp>1259583360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple as that.....</p><p>This just to beat lameness filter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple as that.....This just to beat lameness filter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple as that.....This just to beat lameness filter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382882</id>
	<title>let my phone roam</title>
	<author>ung</author>
	<datestamp>1259585160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be happy to pay per bit as long as my phone can go out and query all available wireless providers for the lowest rate on a connection by connection basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be happy to pay per bit as long as my phone can go out and query all available wireless providers for the lowest rate on a connection by connection basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be happy to pay per bit as long as my phone can go out and query all available wireless providers for the lowest rate on a connection by connection basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30386108</id>
	<title>tiered rates just like electricity</title>
	<author>NuShrike</author>
	<datestamp>1260441360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just follow the way plans work in celphone heaven Japan: tiered rates just like your water and electricity bills.  It's low if you stay below certain ranges, and more if you go higher.</p><p>Fair for everybody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just follow the way plans work in celphone heaven Japan : tiered rates just like your water and electricity bills .
It 's low if you stay below certain ranges , and more if you go higher.Fair for everybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just follow the way plans work in celphone heaven Japan: tiered rates just like your water and electricity bills.
It's low if you stay below certain ranges, and more if you go higher.Fair for everybody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381066</id>
	<title>What about lower fees for low bandwidth users?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I would like (no chance) is if they charged<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/less/ if you were a low bandwidth user.  Instead, it's one price no matter how little data you use.  Then they complain if you use too much data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I would like ( no chance ) is if they charged /less/ if you were a low bandwidth user .
Instead , it 's one price no matter how little data you use .
Then they complain if you use too much data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I would like (no chance) is if they charged /less/ if you were a low bandwidth user.
Instead, it's one price no matter how little data you use.
Then they complain if you use too much data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382124</id>
	<title>3\% use 40\% ?</title>
	<author>IGnatius T Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1259581080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"AT&amp;T has found that only 3\% of its smartphone users -- primarily iPhone owners -- are responsible for 40\% of total data usage"<br> <br>Or, put another way: <b>AT&amp;T has found that 97\% of its smartphone users are not using anywhere close to the amount of bandwidth they are paying for.</b> <br> <br>As a result, they should have plenty of extra capacity and plenty of extra cash for network upgrades, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" AT&amp;T has found that only 3 \ % of its smartphone users -- primarily iPhone owners -- are responsible for 40 \ % of total data usage " Or , put another way : AT&amp;T has found that 97 \ % of its smartphone users are not using anywhere close to the amount of bandwidth they are paying for .
As a result , they should have plenty of extra capacity and plenty of extra cash for network upgrades , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"AT&amp;T has found that only 3\% of its smartphone users -- primarily iPhone owners -- are responsible for 40\% of total data usage" Or, put another way: AT&amp;T has found that 97\% of its smartphone users are not using anywhere close to the amount of bandwidth they are paying for.
As a result, they should have plenty of extra capacity and plenty of extra cash for network upgrades, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383276</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259587440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See post just above yours.   That's why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See post just above yours .
That 's why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See post just above yours.
That's why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30386956</id>
	<title>Can sometimes be a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260452700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to get modded a troll for this, I just know it, but anyway...</p><p>I've just recently moved, and it's a houseshare. I'm hobbling along on an old pmac G4 and it does not, currently, support any wifi stick which I readily have access to (which I'd need to connect to the Internet, the landlord doesn't allow whacking great Cat5 cables running thru the house).</p><p>So at the moment, I'm having to hook up my mobile phone, which is on 3 UK, via Bluetooth to said box.</p><p>Doing so has instilled so much bandwith restraint in me, it's unreal. When I had access to unlim 20Mbit SDSL via ethernet in the previous place I was living I'd torrent until the cows came home (or ran out of disk space). Now, having to pay &pound;10/GB, I don't torrent, I cache where possible, and really have to watch my bandwidth usage. It's also turned me toward trying to find legal means that don't tax bandwidth as hard to get my entertainment fix, like Spotify and its offline playlists.</p><p>I think ISP's should have done this from the start, instead of creating the huge PR disaster that is 'unlimited data', because that's not something they can realistically provide without it bringing the network to its knees. They do, of course, need to actually use the extra revenue to increase capacity in their network, rather than using it to fund the CEO's yacht or the shareholders' champagne.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to get modded a troll for this , I just know it , but anyway...I 've just recently moved , and it 's a houseshare .
I 'm hobbling along on an old pmac G4 and it does not , currently , support any wifi stick which I readily have access to ( which I 'd need to connect to the Internet , the landlord does n't allow whacking great Cat5 cables running thru the house ) .So at the moment , I 'm having to hook up my mobile phone , which is on 3 UK , via Bluetooth to said box.Doing so has instilled so much bandwith restraint in me , it 's unreal .
When I had access to unlim 20Mbit SDSL via ethernet in the previous place I was living I 'd torrent until the cows came home ( or ran out of disk space ) .
Now , having to pay   10/GB , I do n't torrent , I cache where possible , and really have to watch my bandwidth usage .
It 's also turned me toward trying to find legal means that do n't tax bandwidth as hard to get my entertainment fix , like Spotify and its offline playlists.I think ISP 's should have done this from the start , instead of creating the huge PR disaster that is 'unlimited data ' , because that 's not something they can realistically provide without it bringing the network to its knees .
They do , of course , need to actually use the extra revenue to increase capacity in their network , rather than using it to fund the CEO 's yacht or the shareholders ' champagne .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to get modded a troll for this, I just know it, but anyway...I've just recently moved, and it's a houseshare.
I'm hobbling along on an old pmac G4 and it does not, currently, support any wifi stick which I readily have access to (which I'd need to connect to the Internet, the landlord doesn't allow whacking great Cat5 cables running thru the house).So at the moment, I'm having to hook up my mobile phone, which is on 3 UK, via Bluetooth to said box.Doing so has instilled so much bandwith restraint in me, it's unreal.
When I had access to unlim 20Mbit SDSL via ethernet in the previous place I was living I'd torrent until the cows came home (or ran out of disk space).
Now, having to pay £10/GB, I don't torrent, I cache where possible, and really have to watch my bandwidth usage.
It's also turned me toward trying to find legal means that don't tax bandwidth as hard to get my entertainment fix, like Spotify and its offline playlists.I think ISP's should have done this from the start, instead of creating the huge PR disaster that is 'unlimited data', because that's not something they can realistically provide without it bringing the network to its knees.
They do, of course, need to actually use the extra revenue to increase capacity in their network, rather than using it to fund the CEO's yacht or the shareholders' champagne.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385758</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong story label</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1260435900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-12261\_7-10371298-10356022.html" title="cnet.com">http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-12261\_7-10371298-10356022.html</a> [cnet.com] </p><p>
From that artcle..</p><p>The company's annual report indicates it spent about $20 billion in capital expenditures for its wireless and wireline networks in 2008. And this year AT&amp;T is estimating it will spend between $17 billion and $18 billion on its wireless and wireline networks.</p><p>
Of course that doesn't follow the Slashdot groupthink.. but oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet ... http : //reviews.cnet.com/8301-12261 \ _7-10371298-10356022.html [ cnet.com ] From that artcle..The company 's annual report indicates it spent about $ 20 billion in capital expenditures for its wireless and wireline networks in 2008 .
And this year AT&amp;T is estimating it will spend between $ 17 billion and $ 18 billion on its wireless and wireline networks .
Of course that does n't follow the Slashdot groupthink.. but oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet ... http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-12261\_7-10371298-10356022.html [cnet.com] 
From that artcle..The company's annual report indicates it spent about $20 billion in capital expenditures for its wireless and wireline networks in 2008.
And this year AT&amp;T is estimating it will spend between $17 billion and $18 billion on its wireless and wireline networks.
Of course that doesn't follow the Slashdot groupthink.. but oh well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381204</id>
	<title>False Advertising</title>
	<author>Azureflare</author>
	<datestamp>1259576880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean I can get out of my 2 year contract then? This is blatant false advertising and breach of contract. I did not get an iPhone to have stone-age metered internet access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I can get out of my 2 year contract then ?
This is blatant false advertising and breach of contract .
I did not get an iPhone to have stone-age metered internet access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I can get out of my 2 year contract then?
This is blatant false advertising and breach of contract.
I did not get an iPhone to have stone-age metered internet access.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30389450</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>godefroi</author>
	<datestamp>1260466320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be willing to bet it's not a wired network capacity issue, but a wireless spectrum issue. IANAWNE and stuff, but that's my guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be willing to bet it 's not a wired network capacity issue , but a wireless spectrum issue .
IANAWNE and stuff , but that 's my guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be willing to bet it's not a wired network capacity issue, but a wireless spectrum issue.
IANAWNE and stuff, but that's my guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383866</id>
	<title>Class Action Suit anyone?</title>
	<author>duffetta</author>
	<datestamp>1259591340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If AT&amp;T does decide to change their pricing model, I see the lawyers having a field day.  Class Action suit, here we come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If AT&amp;T does decide to change their pricing model , I see the lawyers having a field day .
Class Action suit , here we come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If AT&amp;T does decide to change their pricing model, I see the lawyers having a field day.
Class Action suit, here we come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381696</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>qazwart</author>
	<datestamp>1259578980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>AT&amp;T must have seriously botched their usage projections, not bothered to do any</p></div></blockquote><p>It went like this:</p><p>Apple: We are producing a new phone that will allow you to get million of new customers, stop hemorrhaging customers,  and compete effectively against Verizon. You want it?</p><p>AT&amp;T: Oh, yes please!</p><p>When the iPhone first came out, AT&amp;T was in desperate position. It was bigger than Verizon, but its network was a mess, and it was losing customers. Verizon had the better network and even though Apple offered Verizon the iPhone first, they didn't want it if Apple was going to tell them how it should work. Verizon doesn't operate that way. They tell phone companies what phones to build and what features to offer and at what prices.</p><p>Also, when the iPhone first came out, it didn't have all those cool apps. You could surf the Intertubes, but there weren't all those cool network hogging apps.</p><p>It will be an interesting competition. I understand AT&amp;T's position. They simply cannot grow their network fast enough to keep up, and the lack of bandwidth is a pain shared with all customers. The problem AT&amp;T is having is that the iPhone isn't unique anymore. There is Droid and Palm and they'll still have unlimited data plans. Plus, if the iPhone U.S. exclusivity ends, the other carriers will quickly start offering the iPhone too.</p><p>AT&amp;T can't charge for data plans if no one else does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T must have seriously botched their usage projections , not bothered to do anyIt went like this : Apple : We are producing a new phone that will allow you to get million of new customers , stop hemorrhaging customers , and compete effectively against Verizon .
You want it ? AT&amp;T : Oh , yes please ! When the iPhone first came out , AT&amp;T was in desperate position .
It was bigger than Verizon , but its network was a mess , and it was losing customers .
Verizon had the better network and even though Apple offered Verizon the iPhone first , they did n't want it if Apple was going to tell them how it should work .
Verizon does n't operate that way .
They tell phone companies what phones to build and what features to offer and at what prices.Also , when the iPhone first came out , it did n't have all those cool apps .
You could surf the Intertubes , but there were n't all those cool network hogging apps.It will be an interesting competition .
I understand AT&amp;T 's position .
They simply can not grow their network fast enough to keep up , and the lack of bandwidth is a pain shared with all customers .
The problem AT&amp;T is having is that the iPhone is n't unique anymore .
There is Droid and Palm and they 'll still have unlimited data plans .
Plus , if the iPhone U.S. exclusivity ends , the other carriers will quickly start offering the iPhone too.AT&amp;T ca n't charge for data plans if no one else does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T must have seriously botched their usage projections, not bothered to do anyIt went like this:Apple: We are producing a new phone that will allow you to get million of new customers, stop hemorrhaging customers,  and compete effectively against Verizon.
You want it?AT&amp;T: Oh, yes please!When the iPhone first came out, AT&amp;T was in desperate position.
It was bigger than Verizon, but its network was a mess, and it was losing customers.
Verizon had the better network and even though Apple offered Verizon the iPhone first, they didn't want it if Apple was going to tell them how it should work.
Verizon doesn't operate that way.
They tell phone companies what phones to build and what features to offer and at what prices.Also, when the iPhone first came out, it didn't have all those cool apps.
You could surf the Intertubes, but there weren't all those cool network hogging apps.It will be an interesting competition.
I understand AT&amp;T's position.
They simply cannot grow their network fast enough to keep up, and the lack of bandwidth is a pain shared with all customers.
The problem AT&amp;T is having is that the iPhone isn't unique anymore.
There is Droid and Palm and they'll still have unlimited data plans.
Plus, if the iPhone U.S. exclusivity ends, the other carriers will quickly start offering the iPhone too.AT&amp;T can't charge for data plans if no one else does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381558</id>
	<title>Please buy our stuff!</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1259578380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our new device is really cool! You can watch video, listen to mp3s, and surf the web. But please don't do any of those things. Our network isn't designed for it. If our device changes your life like we advertise we'll need to charge you a lot of money to keep using our network. Because people who use our network as advertised our bandwidth hogs. Ok? Sound good? Great!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our new device is really cool !
You can watch video , listen to mp3s , and surf the web .
But please do n't do any of those things .
Our network is n't designed for it .
If our device changes your life like we advertise we 'll need to charge you a lot of money to keep using our network .
Because people who use our network as advertised our bandwidth hogs .
Ok ? Sound good ?
Great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our new device is really cool!
You can watch video, listen to mp3s, and surf the web.
But please don't do any of those things.
Our network isn't designed for it.
If our device changes your life like we advertise we'll need to charge you a lot of money to keep using our network.
Because people who use our network as advertised our bandwidth hogs.
Ok? Sound good?
Great!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381692</id>
	<title>Prediction</title>
	<author>Necron69</author>
	<datestamp>1259578980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether it is AT&amp;T (my carrier) or not, the first wireless company to do this with will drive away smartphone users by the millions. Once that first usage-based bill hits, the cancellations will come rolling in.</p><p>I am willing to pay $30/month for mobile Internet. I am NOT willing to pay $100/month in the future for the same usage. I'll either switch phone companies, or failing that, I'll just switch back to a phone without the data plan and do without mobile internet access.</p><p>Necron69</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether it is AT&amp;T ( my carrier ) or not , the first wireless company to do this with will drive away smartphone users by the millions .
Once that first usage-based bill hits , the cancellations will come rolling in.I am willing to pay $ 30/month for mobile Internet .
I am NOT willing to pay $ 100/month in the future for the same usage .
I 'll either switch phone companies , or failing that , I 'll just switch back to a phone without the data plan and do without mobile internet access.Necron69</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether it is AT&amp;T (my carrier) or not, the first wireless company to do this with will drive away smartphone users by the millions.
Once that first usage-based bill hits, the cancellations will come rolling in.I am willing to pay $30/month for mobile Internet.
I am NOT willing to pay $100/month in the future for the same usage.
I'll either switch phone companies, or failing that, I'll just switch back to a phone without the data plan and do without mobile internet access.Necron69</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380996</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1259576100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose that would be possible if every part of the network could carry the maximum traffic of all the lines it feeds. But in practice that is not the case. For service delivery (lets say power) we pay a mixture of fixed costs for infrastructure and volume charges for the resource we use. I think that is the best way to go economically and it is fairer on all users as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose that would be possible if every part of the network could carry the maximum traffic of all the lines it feeds .
But in practice that is not the case .
For service delivery ( lets say power ) we pay a mixture of fixed costs for infrastructure and volume charges for the resource we use .
I think that is the best way to go economically and it is fairer on all users as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose that would be possible if every part of the network could carry the maximum traffic of all the lines it feeds.
But in practice that is not the case.
For service delivery (lets say power) we pay a mixture of fixed costs for infrastructure and volume charges for the resource we use.
I think that is the best way to go economically and it is fairer on all users as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380970</id>
	<title>Profit</title>
	<author>Ractive</author>
	<datestamp>1259575980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a business opportunity for other ISPs to offer unlimited access and compete with these greedy assholes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a business opportunity for other ISPs to offer unlimited access and compete with these greedy assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a business opportunity for other ISPs to offer unlimited access and compete with these greedy assholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381798</id>
	<title>Welcome to Australia</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1259579460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will your isp roll out better quality?<br>
No they will just spread out data plans to distract and then bundle lock ins over 1-2 years.<br>
Any roll out will be seen as a cost, any cut backs a savings.<br>
They can keep rust belt tech glowing and spin that your living in the future.<br>

Fight it, set up community isp's, get politically active to change local laws to get real some real capitalism in your area.<br>
Once this system gets hold, all the small isps for a cartel with larger telcos and just sell data vs live US support, ie a race to the bottom.<br>
All I can say is, dont let this happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will your isp roll out better quality ?
No they will just spread out data plans to distract and then bundle lock ins over 1-2 years .
Any roll out will be seen as a cost , any cut backs a savings .
They can keep rust belt tech glowing and spin that your living in the future .
Fight it , set up community isp 's , get politically active to change local laws to get real some real capitalism in your area .
Once this system gets hold , all the small isps for a cartel with larger telcos and just sell data vs live US support , ie a race to the bottom .
All I can say is , dont let this happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will your isp roll out better quality?
No they will just spread out data plans to distract and then bundle lock ins over 1-2 years.
Any roll out will be seen as a cost, any cut backs a savings.
They can keep rust belt tech glowing and spin that your living in the future.
Fight it, set up community isp's, get politically active to change local laws to get real some real capitalism in your area.
Once this system gets hold, all the small isps for a cartel with larger telcos and just sell data vs live US support, ie a race to the bottom.
All I can say is, dont let this happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385672</id>
	<title>It's fun to blame AT&amp;T but ...</title>
	<author>Netssansfrontieres</author>
	<datestamp>1260477780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps phone companies really ARE evil, don't know.<br>But here's the way some of this works as a business:<br>1. Spectrum auctions (and landlords charging for antenna locations) are economically perfect mechanisms to drive the business case for wireless services to nearly non-existence. Spectrum auctions almost necessarily push telcos to pay nosebleed prices, just to participate. (The UK auctions were manically unhinged: they had a rider saying that BT would lose its GSM license unless it bought 3G spectrum. In consequence BT just about *had* to pay whatever it took, just to stay in business.) Auctions are not about valuing assets, they're a hidden tax. The cost of equipment is not nearly as critical a cost factor as the cost of cell sites (~100,000 per major carrier in the US) and the spectrum; both lack competitive supply/demand forces to contain them.<br>Likewise, landlords are armed with economic models and consultants that drive every last red cent out of business models too. Hey, that's how business works.<br>The cost of equipment is not nearly as critical a cost factor as the cost of cell sites (~100,000 per major carrier in the US) and the spectrum; both lack competitive supply/demand forces to contain them. Operating networks with tens of thousands of nodes in the USA's large landmass ain't cheap.</p><p>2. Along come smartphones and these and and apps, (and misleading marketing) create soaring basic demand;</p><p>3. Bloated apps (Skype, ugh), IP and (e.g.) the Van Jacobsen quickstart algorithm then take said traffic and inherently drive it to network saturation.</p><p>So: perhaps telco execs are satanic, let's get pitchforks and blazing torches.</p><p>But, the economics and technical dynamics of the marketplace are in inherent conflict. US gov't policies are at least as much to blame. And so are landlords.</p><p>The analysis can get much deeper - but without revealing a useful solution for the US, alas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps phone companies really ARE evil , do n't know.But here 's the way some of this works as a business : 1 .
Spectrum auctions ( and landlords charging for antenna locations ) are economically perfect mechanisms to drive the business case for wireless services to nearly non-existence .
Spectrum auctions almost necessarily push telcos to pay nosebleed prices , just to participate .
( The UK auctions were manically unhinged : they had a rider saying that BT would lose its GSM license unless it bought 3G spectrum .
In consequence BT just about * had * to pay whatever it took , just to stay in business .
) Auctions are not about valuing assets , they 're a hidden tax .
The cost of equipment is not nearly as critical a cost factor as the cost of cell sites ( ~ 100,000 per major carrier in the US ) and the spectrum ; both lack competitive supply/demand forces to contain them.Likewise , landlords are armed with economic models and consultants that drive every last red cent out of business models too .
Hey , that 's how business works.The cost of equipment is not nearly as critical a cost factor as the cost of cell sites ( ~ 100,000 per major carrier in the US ) and the spectrum ; both lack competitive supply/demand forces to contain them .
Operating networks with tens of thousands of nodes in the USA 's large landmass ai n't cheap.2 .
Along come smartphones and these and and apps , ( and misleading marketing ) create soaring basic demand ; 3 .
Bloated apps ( Skype , ugh ) , IP and ( e.g .
) the Van Jacobsen quickstart algorithm then take said traffic and inherently drive it to network saturation.So : perhaps telco execs are satanic , let 's get pitchforks and blazing torches.But , the economics and technical dynamics of the marketplace are in inherent conflict .
US gov't policies are at least as much to blame .
And so are landlords.The analysis can get much deeper - but without revealing a useful solution for the US , alas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps phone companies really ARE evil, don't know.But here's the way some of this works as a business:1.
Spectrum auctions (and landlords charging for antenna locations) are economically perfect mechanisms to drive the business case for wireless services to nearly non-existence.
Spectrum auctions almost necessarily push telcos to pay nosebleed prices, just to participate.
(The UK auctions were manically unhinged: they had a rider saying that BT would lose its GSM license unless it bought 3G spectrum.
In consequence BT just about *had* to pay whatever it took, just to stay in business.
) Auctions are not about valuing assets, they're a hidden tax.
The cost of equipment is not nearly as critical a cost factor as the cost of cell sites (~100,000 per major carrier in the US) and the spectrum; both lack competitive supply/demand forces to contain them.Likewise, landlords are armed with economic models and consultants that drive every last red cent out of business models too.
Hey, that's how business works.The cost of equipment is not nearly as critical a cost factor as the cost of cell sites (~100,000 per major carrier in the US) and the spectrum; both lack competitive supply/demand forces to contain them.
Operating networks with tens of thousands of nodes in the USA's large landmass ain't cheap.2.
Along come smartphones and these and and apps, (and misleading marketing) create soaring basic demand;3.
Bloated apps (Skype, ugh), IP and (e.g.
) the Van Jacobsen quickstart algorithm then take said traffic and inherently drive it to network saturation.So: perhaps telco execs are satanic, let's get pitchforks and blazing torches.But, the economics and technical dynamics of the marketplace are in inherent conflict.
US gov't policies are at least as much to blame.
And so are landlords.The analysis can get much deeper - but without revealing a useful solution for the US, alas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381304</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>theghost</author>
	<datestamp>1259577360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time for Apple to abandon to sinking ship that is AT&amp;T if they want to retain their leadership position in the field.</p><p>Maybe they needed the $ from the exclusive contract at first, but now that the brand is established, it's just dragging them down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for Apple to abandon to sinking ship that is AT&amp;T if they want to retain their leadership position in the field.Maybe they needed the $ from the exclusive contract at first , but now that the brand is established , it 's just dragging them down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for Apple to abandon to sinking ship that is AT&amp;T if they want to retain their leadership position in the field.Maybe they needed the $ from the exclusive contract at first, but now that the brand is established, it's just dragging them down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381024</id>
	<title>Corporations are people too</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1259576160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corporate America: our mistakes are our customers' fault and they need to pay through the nose or else they'll never learn.</p><p>Maybe with all the extra money they'll be getting with this, they'll upgrade their network so they can actually give people what they said they would give them at the price they said they would!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporate America : our mistakes are our customers ' fault and they need to pay through the nose or else they 'll never learn.Maybe with all the extra money they 'll be getting with this , they 'll upgrade their network so they can actually give people what they said they would give them at the price they said they would !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporate America: our mistakes are our customers' fault and they need to pay through the nose or else they'll never learn.Maybe with all the extra money they'll be getting with this, they'll upgrade their network so they can actually give people what they said they would give them at the price they said they would!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381714</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but guess what? Cut out that 3\%, and 3\% of the remaining 97\% still use 40\% of the bandwidth that's used. Welcome to the power law, baby!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but guess what ?
Cut out that 3 \ % , and 3 \ % of the remaining 97 \ % still use 40 \ % of the bandwidth that 's used .
Welcome to the power law , baby !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but guess what?
Cut out that 3\%, and 3\% of the remaining 97\% still use 40\% of the bandwidth that's used.
Welcome to the power law, baby!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383158</id>
	<title>Re:What's this line on my iPhone bill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may want to check the Terms and Conditions where AT&amp;T can change the terms at any time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may want to check the Terms and Conditions where AT&amp;T can change the terms at any time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may want to check the Terms and Conditions where AT&amp;T can change the terms at any time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384826</id>
	<title>Stop forcing me to carry a data plan</title>
	<author>SocietyoftheFist</author>
	<datestamp>1259600640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can get by just fine using only wifi.  If AT&amp;T is serious about this they need to give the option to not carry a data plan.  I would be a part of any class action lawsuit if they go through with this.  They can't force me to carry something and then tell me I can't use it how I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can get by just fine using only wifi .
If AT&amp;T is serious about this they need to give the option to not carry a data plan .
I would be a part of any class action lawsuit if they go through with this .
They ca n't force me to carry something and then tell me I ca n't use it how I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can get by just fine using only wifi.
If AT&amp;T is serious about this they need to give the option to not carry a data plan.
I would be a part of any class action lawsuit if they go through with this.
They can't force me to carry something and then tell me I can't use it how I want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380980</id>
	<title>Newsworthy?</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1259576040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet it's <em>still</em> cheaper to pull data from the HST? It's really a shame we let these CEO's and large corporations rape us on a daily basis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet it 's still cheaper to pull data from the HST ?
It 's really a shame we let these CEO 's and large corporations rape us on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet it's still cheaper to pull data from the HST?
It's really a shame we let these CEO's and large corporations rape us on a daily basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381884</id>
	<title>Get less data greedy browser</title>
	<author>Krokz</author>
	<datestamp>1259579820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Well I tested Opera mini against symbian browser in my Nokia, but still:<br>
<br>
BBC main mobile page:<br>
Operi Mini: 7kB (!); 3 good q thumbnails<br>
Symbina in build browser: 26kB; one thumbnail more - commercial<br>
<br>
CNN main mobile page:<br>
Opera mini: 13kB<br>
Symbian in build browser: 68kB; one thumbnail more - local weather<br>
<br>
Engadget main page, tested several times, couldn't bealive the results:<br>
Opera Mini: 177kB<br>
Symbian in build browser: 2.50MB (!)<br>
<br>
<br>
Ofc, App store would never allow Opera<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>
Even dough Opera uses their proxy servers, for compressing the data and sending
it to clients, the loading of pages is still faster because of the good
compression and add-blocking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I tested Opera mini against symbian browser in my Nokia , but still : BBC main mobile page : Operi Mini : 7kB ( !
) ; 3 good q thumbnails Symbina in build browser : 26kB ; one thumbnail more - commercial CNN main mobile page : Opera mini : 13kB Symbian in build browser : 68kB ; one thumbnail more - local weather Engadget main page , tested several times , could n't bealive the results : Opera Mini : 177kB Symbian in build browser : 2.50MB ( !
) Ofc , App store would never allow Opera ; ) Even dough Opera uses their proxy servers , for compressing the data and sending it to clients , the loading of pages is still faster because of the good compression and add-blocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Well I tested Opera mini against symbian browser in my Nokia, but still:

BBC main mobile page:
Operi Mini: 7kB (!
); 3 good q thumbnails
Symbina in build browser: 26kB; one thumbnail more - commercial

CNN main mobile page:
Opera mini: 13kB
Symbian in build browser: 68kB; one thumbnail more - local weather

Engadget main page, tested several times, couldn't bealive the results:
Opera Mini: 177kB
Symbian in build browser: 2.50MB (!
)


Ofc, App store would never allow Opera ;)
Even dough Opera uses their proxy servers, for compressing the data and sending
it to clients, the loading of pages is still faster because of the good
compression and add-blocking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385070</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1259603760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my area (Southeast Florida) there are a great many areas where no coverage is available, and also a great many where signal strength is low. In these situations the iPhone (BlackBerry too) lowers throughput. The solution for people in my situation is to add towers -- the existing towers are too far away to provide coverage. Maybe once we have decent metropolitan coverage we can start worrying about bandwidth.<br> <br>And no, Sprint sucks too. I'm on my AirCard with 1 of 4 bars... and I'm in a very large city in a county with more than 1.2M people. Going outside to the front or rear of the house sometimes gives me 2 bars. A $35 amplified antenna didn't help either. The iPhone gets 1 bar inside the house most of the time and 3 bars outside, better but sometimes it's in the "E" network instead of the 3G network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my area ( Southeast Florida ) there are a great many areas where no coverage is available , and also a great many where signal strength is low .
In these situations the iPhone ( BlackBerry too ) lowers throughput .
The solution for people in my situation is to add towers -- the existing towers are too far away to provide coverage .
Maybe once we have decent metropolitan coverage we can start worrying about bandwidth .
And no , Sprint sucks too .
I 'm on my AirCard with 1 of 4 bars... and I 'm in a very large city in a county with more than 1.2M people .
Going outside to the front or rear of the house sometimes gives me 2 bars .
A $ 35 amplified antenna did n't help either .
The iPhone gets 1 bar inside the house most of the time and 3 bars outside , better but sometimes it 's in the " E " network instead of the 3G network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my area (Southeast Florida) there are a great many areas where no coverage is available, and also a great many where signal strength is low.
In these situations the iPhone (BlackBerry too) lowers throughput.
The solution for people in my situation is to add towers -- the existing towers are too far away to provide coverage.
Maybe once we have decent metropolitan coverage we can start worrying about bandwidth.
And no, Sprint sucks too.
I'm on my AirCard with 1 of 4 bars... and I'm in a very large city in a county with more than 1.2M people.
Going outside to the front or rear of the house sometimes gives me 2 bars.
A $35 amplified antenna didn't help either.
The iPhone gets 1 bar inside the house most of the time and 3 bars outside, better but sometimes it's in the "E" network instead of the 3G network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382888</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259585220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What other ISPs? Technically, I have ATT and Comcast in my area. That's it. There are a few more ISPs, but they all lease lines from ATT. Whatever business model ATT comes up with, the other ISPs will have to accept. And I don't trust Comcast to actually compete with ATT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What other ISPs ?
Technically , I have ATT and Comcast in my area .
That 's it .
There are a few more ISPs , but they all lease lines from ATT .
Whatever business model ATT comes up with , the other ISPs will have to accept .
And I do n't trust Comcast to actually compete with ATT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What other ISPs?
Technically, I have ATT and Comcast in my area.
That's it.
There are a few more ISPs, but they all lease lines from ATT.
Whatever business model ATT comes up with, the other ISPs will have to accept.
And I don't trust Comcast to actually compete with ATT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381414</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Vegeta99</author>
	<datestamp>1259577840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assholes. They already do that. There's a couple of different "unlimited" plans, depending on how much AT&amp;T thinks you'll use that specific phone on the network. I pay $30 for unlimited internet, others pay $15. No cheating and using a crap phone to activate and then changing SIMs either, if it's an AT&amp;T branded phone, they know and kick you off your plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assholes .
They already do that .
There 's a couple of different " unlimited " plans , depending on how much AT&amp;T thinks you 'll use that specific phone on the network .
I pay $ 30 for unlimited internet , others pay $ 15 .
No cheating and using a crap phone to activate and then changing SIMs either , if it 's an AT&amp;T branded phone , they know and kick you off your plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assholes.
They already do that.
There's a couple of different "unlimited" plans, depending on how much AT&amp;T thinks you'll use that specific phone on the network.
I pay $30 for unlimited internet, others pay $15.
No cheating and using a crap phone to activate and then changing SIMs either, if it's an AT&amp;T branded phone, they know and kick you off your plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381904</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>EastCoastSurfer</author>
	<datestamp>1259579940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when is anyone at ATT smart enough to think of what you described?</p><p>I got a nasty gram from them the other day.  It said my bill was late and if I didn't pay the bill immediately my service would be shut off.  Then there would be fees, etc...  Guess how much it finally said I owed?  $0...yep ZERO dollars.  If they are paying postage and paper costs to send out letters like the one I received I can't imagine what other idiotic things they are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is anyone at ATT smart enough to think of what you described ? I got a nasty gram from them the other day .
It said my bill was late and if I did n't pay the bill immediately my service would be shut off .
Then there would be fees , etc... Guess how much it finally said I owed ?
$ 0...yep ZERO dollars .
If they are paying postage and paper costs to send out letters like the one I received I ca n't imagine what other idiotic things they are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is anyone at ATT smart enough to think of what you described?I got a nasty gram from them the other day.
It said my bill was late and if I didn't pay the bill immediately my service would be shut off.
Then there would be fees, etc...  Guess how much it finally said I owed?
$0...yep ZERO dollars.
If they are paying postage and paper costs to send out letters like the one I received I can't imagine what other idiotic things they are doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136</id>
	<title>Should electricity be charged per-watt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electricity is on a per-joule (I refuse to use the so-called 'unit' of kilowatt-hour) basis, and that seems to work out just fine (this being analogous to being charged per data unit). In fact, it would be downright stupid to pay for it on a per-watt basis (analogous to per data unit/sec). Just curious as to why internet access is perceived in a fundamentally different way than electricity, in this respect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electricity is on a per-joule ( I refuse to use the so-called 'unit ' of kilowatt-hour ) basis , and that seems to work out just fine ( this being analogous to being charged per data unit ) .
In fact , it would be downright stupid to pay for it on a per-watt basis ( analogous to per data unit/sec ) .
Just curious as to why internet access is perceived in a fundamentally different way than electricity , in this respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electricity is on a per-joule (I refuse to use the so-called 'unit' of kilowatt-hour) basis, and that seems to work out just fine (this being analogous to being charged per data unit).
In fact, it would be downright stupid to pay for it on a per-watt basis (analogous to per data unit/sec).
Just curious as to why internet access is perceived in a fundamentally different way than electricity, in this respect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381310</id>
	<title>iPhone without AT&amp;T = Touch</title>
	<author>grolaw</author>
	<datestamp>1259577360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If those worthless twits at AT&amp;T, who already have the lowest satisfaction of any cell provider, and already charge at a very high rate (for two iPhones and a big rollover + unlimited texting - I pay $260.00/mo) add on a data surcharge I'll drop the cell contract instantly - and I do mean instantly.</p><p>It is a recession and tossing $3k/yr out of the office account into two iPhones only to see the brilliant minds at AT&amp;T come up with this idea - well, let's just say that the iPhone will become a touch/Skype phone and I'll let Credo buy out my account.</p><p>AT&amp;T has really bad service - to the point that they now have an app to report their really bad service!  Their apology: we'll charge more because we have an exclusive deal with Apple!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If those worthless twits at AT&amp;T , who already have the lowest satisfaction of any cell provider , and already charge at a very high rate ( for two iPhones and a big rollover + unlimited texting - I pay $ 260.00/mo ) add on a data surcharge I 'll drop the cell contract instantly - and I do mean instantly.It is a recession and tossing $ 3k/yr out of the office account into two iPhones only to see the brilliant minds at AT&amp;T come up with this idea - well , let 's just say that the iPhone will become a touch/Skype phone and I 'll let Credo buy out my account.AT&amp;T has really bad service - to the point that they now have an app to report their really bad service !
Their apology : we 'll charge more because we have an exclusive deal with Apple !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If those worthless twits at AT&amp;T, who already have the lowest satisfaction of any cell provider, and already charge at a very high rate (for two iPhones and a big rollover + unlimited texting - I pay $260.00/mo) add on a data surcharge I'll drop the cell contract instantly - and I do mean instantly.It is a recession and tossing $3k/yr out of the office account into two iPhones only to see the brilliant minds at AT&amp;T come up with this idea - well, let's just say that the iPhone will become a touch/Skype phone and I'll let Credo buy out my account.AT&amp;T has really bad service - to the point that they now have an app to report their really bad service!
Their apology: we'll charge more because we have an exclusive deal with Apple!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384662</id>
	<title>What about Network and Application Efficiency?</title>
	<author>A Guy From Ottawa</author>
	<datestamp>1259598840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If anyone has ever looked at the network usage of a "smart" you will have seen INCREDIBLE waste. For example, I've looked at youtube access on the iphone; the app makes *multiple* requests for the same video (using HTTP byte ranges) at startup. We're talking thousands of bytes wasted on each view of a video. So basically we're paying for the application engineer's terrible network programming. Not cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone has ever looked at the network usage of a " smart " you will have seen INCREDIBLE waste .
For example , I 've looked at youtube access on the iphone ; the app makes * multiple * requests for the same video ( using HTTP byte ranges ) at startup .
We 're talking thousands of bytes wasted on each view of a video .
So basically we 're paying for the application engineer 's terrible network programming .
Not cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone has ever looked at the network usage of a "smart" you will have seen INCREDIBLE waste.
For example, I've looked at youtube access on the iphone; the app makes *multiple* requests for the same video (using HTTP byte ranges) at startup.
We're talking thousands of bytes wasted on each view of a video.
So basically we're paying for the application engineer's terrible network programming.
Not cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381252</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1259577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that USA is a really big country doesn't really matter. Like USA, not all of Europe is heavy-density populated. Scandinavia for example has much smaller population density than USA, but in cities people get 100mbit/s to home, even 1gbit/s. If you're living off a city, 24mbit/s is common place. And no such bullshit than usage fees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that USA is a really big country does n't really matter .
Like USA , not all of Europe is heavy-density populated .
Scandinavia for example has much smaller population density than USA , but in cities people get 100mbit/s to home , even 1gbit/s .
If you 're living off a city , 24mbit/s is common place .
And no such bullshit than usage fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that USA is a really big country doesn't really matter.
Like USA, not all of Europe is heavy-density populated.
Scandinavia for example has much smaller population density than USA, but in cities people get 100mbit/s to home, even 1gbit/s.
If you're living off a city, 24mbit/s is common place.
And no such bullshit than usage fees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383420</id>
	<title>figure out how to proceed?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259588520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have to figure out how to screw the customer?</p><p>Just change the TOS and start charging. then hope the competition ( what is left anyway ) doesn't undercut them.</p><p>Also: "We are going to make sure incentives are in place to reduce or modify [data]uses so they don't crowd out others in the same cell sites." incentives my foot... they aren't waving the carrot around, they are threatening to use the stick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have to figure out how to screw the customer ? Just change the TOS and start charging .
then hope the competition ( what is left anyway ) does n't undercut them.Also : " We are going to make sure incentives are in place to reduce or modify [ data ] uses so they do n't crowd out others in the same cell sites .
" incentives my foot... they are n't waving the carrot around , they are threatening to use the stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have to figure out how to screw the customer?Just change the TOS and start charging.
then hope the competition ( what is left anyway ) doesn't undercut them.Also: "We are going to make sure incentives are in place to reduce or modify [data]uses so they don't crowd out others in the same cell sites.
" incentives my foot... they aren't waving the carrot around, they are threatening to use the stick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384868</id>
	<title>Re:What's this line on my iPhone bill?</title>
	<author>SocietyoftheFist</author>
	<datestamp>1259601240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be willing to join a class action lawsuit.  Force you to add the UNLIMITED data plan and then decide you are going to change the terms?  I don't think so.  I can get along just fine with WiFi so set me free AT&amp;T, I don't need the data plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be willing to join a class action lawsuit .
Force you to add the UNLIMITED data plan and then decide you are going to change the terms ?
I do n't think so .
I can get along just fine with WiFi so set me free AT&amp;T , I do n't need the data plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be willing to join a class action lawsuit.
Force you to add the UNLIMITED data plan and then decide you are going to change the terms?
I don't think so.
I can get along just fine with WiFi so set me free AT&amp;T, I don't need the data plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382206</id>
	<title>If you pay for what you download...</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1259581440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean they're going to filter out all the shit you don't want to download like video ads or ads full stop?
<br> <br>
While the internet isn't strictly like TV, the idea of paying for TV based on how long you use it would be silly.
<br> <br>
ISPs want the best of everything. They get to offer you the world for a small fee but if you dare use what they offer then they punish you. If they can't provide 20meg connections to all their customers all the time then they should be more realistic and only offer 10 meg or 5 meg connections with unlimited use.
<br> <br>
It really annoys me that ISPs aren't held to the same advertising and quality standards as anyone else. They can more or less do what they want and rarely actually come through with what they promise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean they 're going to filter out all the shit you do n't want to download like video ads or ads full stop ?
While the internet is n't strictly like TV , the idea of paying for TV based on how long you use it would be silly .
ISPs want the best of everything .
They get to offer you the world for a small fee but if you dare use what they offer then they punish you .
If they ca n't provide 20meg connections to all their customers all the time then they should be more realistic and only offer 10 meg or 5 meg connections with unlimited use .
It really annoys me that ISPs are n't held to the same advertising and quality standards as anyone else .
They can more or less do what they want and rarely actually come through with what they promise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean they're going to filter out all the shit you don't want to download like video ads or ads full stop?
While the internet isn't strictly like TV, the idea of paying for TV based on how long you use it would be silly.
ISPs want the best of everything.
They get to offer you the world for a small fee but if you dare use what they offer then they punish you.
If they can't provide 20meg connections to all their customers all the time then they should be more realistic and only offer 10 meg or 5 meg connections with unlimited use.
It really annoys me that ISPs aren't held to the same advertising and quality standards as anyone else.
They can more or less do what they want and rarely actually come through with what they promise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381604</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong story label</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1259578560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Jesus phone?  God only thinks he's Steve Jobs.
</p><p>
Seriously, this is not the sort of thing Apple can ignore.  Metering by the megabyte makes the iPhone less fun.  It cuts into the experience.  This is a serious threat to the iPhone and Apple's profit margin, and I really don't think Steve is going to take this lying down.  No matter how many livers he has to go through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus phone ?
God only thinks he 's Steve Jobs .
Seriously , this is not the sort of thing Apple can ignore .
Metering by the megabyte makes the iPhone less fun .
It cuts into the experience .
This is a serious threat to the iPhone and Apple 's profit margin , and I really do n't think Steve is going to take this lying down .
No matter how many livers he has to go through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Jesus phone?
God only thinks he's Steve Jobs.
Seriously, this is not the sort of thing Apple can ignore.
Metering by the megabyte makes the iPhone less fun.
It cuts into the experience.
This is a serious threat to the iPhone and Apple's profit margin, and I really don't think Steve is going to take this lying down.
No matter how many livers he has to go through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385032</id>
	<title>Re:I welcome usage-based fee overlords</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1259603280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with usage fees is once people become accustomed to them, it's easy to ratchet down until you're paying extra for practically everything.<br> <br>I think in this case AT&amp;T better let everyone with an existing contract play out the rest of their 2-year contract without major changes or they will be hit for a large class-action suit. They'd be best to stop advertising plans as unlimited and change pricing only on new plans, and be more careful with their wording in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with usage fees is once people become accustomed to them , it 's easy to ratchet down until you 're paying extra for practically everything .
I think in this case AT&amp;T better let everyone with an existing contract play out the rest of their 2-year contract without major changes or they will be hit for a large class-action suit .
They 'd be best to stop advertising plans as unlimited and change pricing only on new plans , and be more careful with their wording in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with usage fees is once people become accustomed to them, it's easy to ratchet down until you're paying extra for practically everything.
I think in this case AT&amp;T better let everyone with an existing contract play out the rest of their 2-year contract without major changes or they will be hit for a large class-action suit.
They'd be best to stop advertising plans as unlimited and change pricing only on new plans, and be more careful with their wording in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382054</id>
	<title>Funny, I read this...</title>
	<author>Talonius</author>
	<datestamp>1259580780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and all I see are the same types of statistics that are strolled out by the ISPs when network usage and congestion become a problem.  "Blame the top 3\%!"  "Bandwidth hogs!" "Piracy accounts for 75\% of lost revenue!"  Whoops, that last one slipped in but I think you get the point.</p><p>There are always going to be maximum and minimum users - the whole idea is that, on average, you can handle the load.  If you can't handle the load the problem is not the end user - it's you.</p><p>AT&amp;T has received plenty of money with which it could expand it's infrastructure.  It could relieve the bandwidth bottleneck by releasing the iPhone exclusivity.  It could have realized that unlimited users are going to consume as much as they can.  Now they're on the hook and they want to blame the user?  No, that doesn't float.</p><p>(And if I see one more "unlimited*" notation I'm going to scream.  When did unlimited get redefined as "limited to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."?  Why is that not false advertising?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and all I see are the same types of statistics that are strolled out by the ISPs when network usage and congestion become a problem .
" Blame the top 3 \ % !
" " Bandwidth hogs !
" " Piracy accounts for 75 \ % of lost revenue !
" Whoops , that last one slipped in but I think you get the point.There are always going to be maximum and minimum users - the whole idea is that , on average , you can handle the load .
If you ca n't handle the load the problem is not the end user - it 's you.AT&amp;T has received plenty of money with which it could expand it 's infrastructure .
It could relieve the bandwidth bottleneck by releasing the iPhone exclusivity .
It could have realized that unlimited users are going to consume as much as they can .
Now they 're on the hook and they want to blame the user ?
No , that does n't float .
( And if I see one more " unlimited * " notation I 'm going to scream .
When did unlimited get redefined as " limited to ... " ?
Why is that not false advertising ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and all I see are the same types of statistics that are strolled out by the ISPs when network usage and congestion become a problem.
"Blame the top 3\%!
"  "Bandwidth hogs!
" "Piracy accounts for 75\% of lost revenue!
"  Whoops, that last one slipped in but I think you get the point.There are always going to be maximum and minimum users - the whole idea is that, on average, you can handle the load.
If you can't handle the load the problem is not the end user - it's you.AT&amp;T has received plenty of money with which it could expand it's infrastructure.
It could relieve the bandwidth bottleneck by releasing the iPhone exclusivity.
It could have realized that unlimited users are going to consume as much as they can.
Now they're on the hook and they want to blame the user?
No, that doesn't float.
(And if I see one more "unlimited*" notation I'm going to scream.
When did unlimited get redefined as "limited to ..."?
Why is that not false advertising?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381062</id>
	<title>-Mobile- Bandwidth Hogs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of the "Hunting the Mythical Bandwidth Hog" article. If ISPs are so reluctant to actually prove that these hogs exist, what are the odds that there really are these 3\% of -mobile- users who are, what, downloading blu-ray movies on their iPhones?</p><p>Once more, loud and clear: build more freaking towers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the " Hunting the Mythical Bandwidth Hog " article .
If ISPs are so reluctant to actually prove that these hogs exist , what are the odds that there really are these 3 \ % of -mobile- users who are , what , downloading blu-ray movies on their iPhones ? Once more , loud and clear : build more freaking towers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the "Hunting the Mythical Bandwidth Hog" article.
If ISPs are so reluctant to actually prove that these hogs exist, what are the odds that there really are these 3\% of -mobile- users who are, what, downloading blu-ray movies on their iPhones?Once more, loud and clear: build more freaking towers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381378</id>
	<title>Support Publicly Owned Providers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259577660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Support publicly owned providers whenever you can.  It's the only way to fight the monopoly-monster.</p><p>AT&amp;T's goal is to charge you exactly what they can get away with.  A public provider's goal is to charge you what is fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Support publicly owned providers whenever you can .
It 's the only way to fight the monopoly-monster.AT&amp;T 's goal is to charge you exactly what they can get away with .
A public provider 's goal is to charge you what is fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Support publicly owned providers whenever you can.
It's the only way to fight the monopoly-monster.AT&amp;T's goal is to charge you exactly what they can get away with.
A public provider's goal is to charge you what is fair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382078</id>
	<title>Re:Should electricity be charged per-watt?</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1259580900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fundamantally, it because internet access isn't <i>sold</i> that way.  If you bought it by the GB in the first place, it would be a different issue, but when you contract for a givem MB/s and the the carrier wants to change the deal in the middle of the contract, people get upset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fundamantally , it because internet access is n't sold that way .
If you bought it by the GB in the first place , it would be a different issue , but when you contract for a givem MB/s and the the carrier wants to change the deal in the middle of the contract , people get upset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fundamantally, it because internet access isn't sold that way.
If you bought it by the GB in the first place, it would be a different issue, but when you contract for a givem MB/s and the the carrier wants to change the deal in the middle of the contract, people get upset.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382650</id>
	<title>Re:What's this line on my iPhone bill?</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1259583840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;A guy who's looking forward to his contract ending so he can get an Android on a network that hopefully sucks less.</p><p>I've been enjoying the droid on Verizon. The 3G is decently fast, and has pretty good coverage (I've yet to be in an urban area that wasn't covered, and I've been all over the country in the last couple weeks). And you can always enable wifi if you want better bandwidth, less latency, or are worried about being tagged a data hog.</p><p>I think the iPhone is still the better experience, but I've been wanting to buy a (somewhat) open source phone for a while now, and this was my first opportunity to do so on Verizon. I haven't regretted it yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; A guy who 's looking forward to his contract ending so he can get an Android on a network that hopefully sucks less.I 've been enjoying the droid on Verizon .
The 3G is decently fast , and has pretty good coverage ( I 've yet to be in an urban area that was n't covered , and I 've been all over the country in the last couple weeks ) .
And you can always enable wifi if you want better bandwidth , less latency , or are worried about being tagged a data hog.I think the iPhone is still the better experience , but I 've been wanting to buy a ( somewhat ) open source phone for a while now , and this was my first opportunity to do so on Verizon .
I have n't regretted it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;A guy who's looking forward to his contract ending so he can get an Android on a network that hopefully sucks less.I've been enjoying the droid on Verizon.
The 3G is decently fast, and has pretty good coverage (I've yet to be in an urban area that wasn't covered, and I've been all over the country in the last couple weeks).
And you can always enable wifi if you want better bandwidth, less latency, or are worried about being tagged a data hog.I think the iPhone is still the better experience, but I've been wanting to buy a (somewhat) open source phone for a while now, and this was my first opportunity to do so on Verizon.
I haven't regretted it yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381968</id>
	<title>here's why at&amp;t can't keep it up</title>
	<author>aminorex</author>
	<datestamp>1259580360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://blogs.broughturner.com/2009/10/is-att-wireless-data-congestion-selfinflicted.html" title="broughturner.com">http://blogs.broughturner.com/2009/10/is-att-wireless-data-congestion-selfinflicted.html</a> [broughturner.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //blogs.broughturner.com/2009/10/is-att-wireless-data-congestion-selfinflicted.html [ broughturner.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://blogs.broughturner.com/2009/10/is-att-wireless-data-congestion-selfinflicted.html [broughturner.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530</id>
	<title>Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I keep predicting some sort of per-byte fees are inevitable, and people keep arguing with me. "It's not the tragedy of the commons because they can always build more bandwidth." No, wireless bandwidth is regulated by the FCC and finite. Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else's user experience is beyond me. Sure, AT&amp;T could build a better 3G network, but if you expect that grandma (that only uses a data connection to check her email once a day) should be subsidizing your addiction to streaming porn videos, you are one selfish son of a bitch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep predicting some sort of per-byte fees are inevitable , and people keep arguing with me .
" It 's not the tragedy of the commons because they can always build more bandwidth .
" No , wireless bandwidth is regulated by the FCC and finite .
Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else 's user experience is beyond me .
Sure , AT&amp;T could build a better 3G network , but if you expect that grandma ( that only uses a data connection to check her email once a day ) should be subsidizing your addiction to streaming porn videos , you are one selfish son of a bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep predicting some sort of per-byte fees are inevitable, and people keep arguing with me.
"It's not the tragedy of the commons because they can always build more bandwidth.
" No, wireless bandwidth is regulated by the FCC and finite.
Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else's user experience is beyond me.
Sure, AT&amp;T could build a better 3G network, but if you expect that grandma (that only uses a data connection to check her email once a day) should be subsidizing your addiction to streaming porn videos, you are one selfish son of a bitch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381636</id>
	<title>Re:Dear AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>DaFallus</author>
	<datestamp>1259578680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Stop paying Luke Wilson to beat up strawmen on TV</p></div></blockquote><p>

Based on his appearance in these commercials, it would appear that they have been paying him in tacos.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop paying Luke Wilson to beat up strawmen on TV Based on his appearance in these commercials , it would appear that they have been paying him in tacos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop paying Luke Wilson to beat up strawmen on TV

Based on his appearance in these commercials, it would appear that they have been paying him in tacos.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385854</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>10Ghz</author>
	<datestamp>1260437460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.</p> </div><p>Well, the telecoms are selling an unlimited data-service... If they start putting caps on their unlimited data-service, then it's not unlimited anymore, now is it? Those customers are paying hard cash for unlimited service, and that's what they should get. If they get less, they should also pay less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they can identify 3 \ % of people are using 40 \ % , then by all means put a 'cap ' on the fixed price service that * does n't * affect the 97 \ % of normal users .
Well , the telecoms are selling an unlimited data-service... If they start putting caps on their unlimited data-service , then it 's not unlimited anymore , now is it ?
Those customers are paying hard cash for unlimited service , and that 's what they should get .
If they get less , they should also pay less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can identify 3\% of people are using 40\%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97\% of normal users.
Well, the telecoms are selling an unlimited data-service... If they start putting caps on their unlimited data-service, then it's not unlimited anymore, now is it?
Those customers are paying hard cash for unlimited service, and that's what they should get.
If they get less, they should also pay less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381406</id>
	<title>I welcome usage-based fee overlords</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1259577780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I'd be *happy* with usage based fees, if they were 'reasonable' and if you could easily check how much you were using real time (without incurring more usage, similar to checking one's balance on a prepaid phone).  I'd be happy with it, as long as the minimum went very close to zero if you didn't use it.  (A small fee to have 'access' to data along with voice seems somewhat reasonable.)  In other words, I'd like the ability to use an iPhone on current prepaid phones where you can easily get under $5/month with little usage.. and if the balance (which you can never get back) worked for the data fees too, great.</p><p>I admit I don't have a value for 'reasonable' fees, but something that came close to the current fee for the current average usage seems like a good value with which to start.  I suspect instead they'll go with the current fee and go UP for high volume users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'd be * happy * with usage based fees , if they were 'reasonable ' and if you could easily check how much you were using real time ( without incurring more usage , similar to checking one 's balance on a prepaid phone ) .
I 'd be happy with it , as long as the minimum went very close to zero if you did n't use it .
( A small fee to have 'access ' to data along with voice seems somewhat reasonable .
) In other words , I 'd like the ability to use an iPhone on current prepaid phones where you can easily get under $ 5/month with little usage.. and if the balance ( which you can never get back ) worked for the data fees too , great.I admit I do n't have a value for 'reasonable ' fees , but something that came close to the current fee for the current average usage seems like a good value with which to start .
I suspect instead they 'll go with the current fee and go UP for high volume users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'd be *happy* with usage based fees, if they were 'reasonable' and if you could easily check how much you were using real time (without incurring more usage, similar to checking one's balance on a prepaid phone).
I'd be happy with it, as long as the minimum went very close to zero if you didn't use it.
(A small fee to have 'access' to data along with voice seems somewhat reasonable.
)  In other words, I'd like the ability to use an iPhone on current prepaid phones where you can easily get under $5/month with little usage.. and if the balance (which you can never get back) worked for the data fees too, great.I admit I don't have a value for 'reasonable' fees, but something that came close to the current fee for the current average usage seems like a good value with which to start.
I suspect instead they'll go with the current fee and go UP for high volume users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381784</id>
	<title>So... How does charging more HELP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like they are just trying to curb usage not use the money to meet demand. In my book that = FAIL<br>Anyone know what the nominal bandwidth is for one of their cell towers?<br>I could see it being a severe problem in a populous area where they do not have the ability to deploy more towers to meet demand limits the overall capability.<br>If a densely populated area exceeds their capacity how does charging more on a nationwide level fix the problem?<br>AT&amp;T is just ripe to be surpassed as the next mobile company overtakes their network capacity.</p><p>AT&amp;T is just upset because geographic areas of interest shortened the time frame before they have to upgrade their infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like they are just trying to curb usage not use the money to meet demand .
In my book that = FAILAnyone know what the nominal bandwidth is for one of their cell towers ? I could see it being a severe problem in a populous area where they do not have the ability to deploy more towers to meet demand limits the overall capability.If a densely populated area exceeds their capacity how does charging more on a nationwide level fix the problem ? AT&amp;T is just ripe to be surpassed as the next mobile company overtakes their network capacity.AT&amp;T is just upset because geographic areas of interest shortened the time frame before they have to upgrade their infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like they are just trying to curb usage not use the money to meet demand.
In my book that = FAILAnyone know what the nominal bandwidth is for one of their cell towers?I could see it being a severe problem in a populous area where they do not have the ability to deploy more towers to meet demand limits the overall capability.If a densely populated area exceeds their capacity how does charging more on a nationwide level fix the problem?AT&amp;T is just ripe to be surpassed as the next mobile company overtakes their network capacity.AT&amp;T is just upset because geographic areas of interest shortened the time frame before they have to upgrade their infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381554</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>Azureflare</author>
	<datestamp>1259578320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When my 2 year contract is up, I will definitely jump ship to Verizon if they implement this. The droid isn't that bad for what I use my iPhone for (mostly Google Maps when I'm lost in NYC.... which doesn't really happen that much anymore).  I just don't use anything else on it reliably since I got my PSP, except maybe internet, but the Droid does that, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When my 2 year contract is up , I will definitely jump ship to Verizon if they implement this .
The droid is n't that bad for what I use my iPhone for ( mostly Google Maps when I 'm lost in NYC.... which does n't really happen that much anymore ) .
I just do n't use anything else on it reliably since I got my PSP , except maybe internet , but the Droid does that , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When my 2 year contract is up, I will definitely jump ship to Verizon if they implement this.
The droid isn't that bad for what I use my iPhone for (mostly Google Maps when I'm lost in NYC.... which doesn't really happen that much anymore).
I just don't use anything else on it reliably since I got my PSP, except maybe internet, but the Droid does that, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381770</id>
	<title>,AT&amp;T We KIll iPHones Dead</title>
	<author>shareme</author>
	<datestamp>1259579340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other words kill iphone usage despite the billions of dollars collected to upgrade networks..</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words kill iphone usage despite the billions of dollars collected to upgrade networks. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words kill iphone usage despite the billions of dollars collected to upgrade networks..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384040</id>
	<title>Japan data plans</title>
	<author>KamuZ</author>
	<datestamp>1259592840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Japan is pretty common to get a data plan. It starts with a small fee for the first N packets (starts at ~$10 USD) then when you consume too much it starts going up and up until you reach the maximum (about ~$70) but you can keep transferring at normal speed, they don't throttle or cut off the server.</p><p>In short, if you are a heavy user you would pay each month the maximum amount and if you are not, then just $10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Japan is pretty common to get a data plan .
It starts with a small fee for the first N packets ( starts at ~ $ 10 USD ) then when you consume too much it starts going up and up until you reach the maximum ( about ~ $ 70 ) but you can keep transferring at normal speed , they do n't throttle or cut off the server.In short , if you are a heavy user you would pay each month the maximum amount and if you are not , then just $ 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Japan is pretty common to get a data plan.
It starts with a small fee for the first N packets (starts at ~$10 USD) then when you consume too much it starts going up and up until you reach the maximum (about ~$70) but you can keep transferring at normal speed, they don't throttle or cut off the server.In short, if you are a heavy user you would pay each month the maximum amount and if you are not, then just $10.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910</id>
	<title>Time Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259575740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome back to 2000. Data-usage fees per MB were common place back then. Now it's all based on the actual bandwidth, 512kbit/s, 1mbit/s and so on, like it <i>really</i> should be. Use how you want to. In Europe that is.</p><p>It's funny to think that USA should be the best nation with technology and infrastructure, but still your internet connections suck this much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome back to 2000 .
Data-usage fees per MB were common place back then .
Now it 's all based on the actual bandwidth , 512kbit/s , 1mbit/s and so on , like it really should be .
Use how you want to .
In Europe that is.It 's funny to think that USA should be the best nation with technology and infrastructure , but still your internet connections suck this much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome back to 2000.
Data-usage fees per MB were common place back then.
Now it's all based on the actual bandwidth, 512kbit/s, 1mbit/s and so on, like it really should be.
Use how you want to.
In Europe that is.It's funny to think that USA should be the best nation with technology and infrastructure, but still your internet connections suck this much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382626</id>
	<title>Re:Should electricity be charged per-watt?</title>
	<author>LarryRiedel</author>
	<datestamp>1259583720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Energy (content) can presumably be stored, where bandwidth (transport) cannot.  The price of Internet access is (predominantly) for the transport of content, where energy price is (predominantly) for the content itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Energy ( content ) can presumably be stored , where bandwidth ( transport ) can not .
The price of Internet access is ( predominantly ) for the transport of content , where energy price is ( predominantly ) for the content itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energy (content) can presumably be stored, where bandwidth (transport) cannot.
The price of Internet access is (predominantly) for the transport of content, where energy price is (predominantly) for the content itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381248</id>
	<title>Re:The classic double speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They signed an unlimited contract.... With the disclaimer that said subject to change without the their consent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They signed an unlimited contract.... With the disclaimer that said subject to change without the their consent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They signed an unlimited contract.... With the disclaimer that said subject to change without the their consent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383472</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Oceanplexian</author>
	<datestamp>1259588760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean like Cable TV? We'll get usage charges AND tons of advertising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like Cable TV ?
We 'll get usage charges AND tons of advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like Cable TV?
We'll get usage charges AND tons of advertising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381102</id>
	<title>I can see the conversation now</title>
	<author>Puls4r</author>
	<datestamp>1259576460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Sell 3G Iphone and advertise that it can browse the web, download songs, etc. <br>
2. Tie in I-tunes, drm, and a lot of other nasty crap so that once the user starts using it, he loses everything he's purchased (music, apps, etc) if he stops. <br>
3. Increase the price on those users because they doing something "wrong" by using it too much. <br>
4. ????? <br>
5. Profit
<br> <br>
Screw that bullshit.  I think I'll keep using my phone as just a phone, until these guys get their heads out of their asses.  Do folks really have that much disposable income that they can drop hundreds a month on silliness like this?  It's a rethorical question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Sell 3G Iphone and advertise that it can browse the web , download songs , etc .
2. Tie in I-tunes , drm , and a lot of other nasty crap so that once the user starts using it , he loses everything he 's purchased ( music , apps , etc ) if he stops .
3. Increase the price on those users because they doing something " wrong " by using it too much .
4. ? ? ? ? ?
5. Profit Screw that bullshit .
I think I 'll keep using my phone as just a phone , until these guys get their heads out of their asses .
Do folks really have that much disposable income that they can drop hundreds a month on silliness like this ?
It 's a rethorical question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Sell 3G Iphone and advertise that it can browse the web, download songs, etc.
2. Tie in I-tunes, drm, and a lot of other nasty crap so that once the user starts using it, he loses everything he's purchased (music, apps, etc) if he stops.
3. Increase the price on those users because they doing something "wrong" by using it too much.
4. ?????
5. Profit
 
Screw that bullshit.
I think I'll keep using my phone as just a phone, until these guys get their heads out of their asses.
Do folks really have that much disposable income that they can drop hundreds a month on silliness like this?
It's a rethorical question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381392</id>
	<title>So let me get this straight....</title>
	<author>arkham6</author>
	<datestamp>1259577720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They advertise the Iphone and the other media phones as being able to get streaming music, check football scores, write email, do all this neat stuff with AT&amp;T!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....and then they get pissed when people actually DO it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They advertise the Iphone and the other media phones as being able to get streaming music , check football scores , write email , do all this neat stuff with AT&amp;T !
.....and then they get pissed when people actually DO it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They advertise the Iphone and the other media phones as being able to get streaming music, check football scores, write email, do all this neat stuff with AT&amp;T!
.....and then they get pissed when people actually DO it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381894</id>
	<title>Re:Time Machine</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1259579940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The USA is too spread out for traditional mass-transit systems to work very well here, except in a very few exceptional places with high density, like NYC, SanFran, etc.</p><p>The best solution to mass-transit in the USA is "PRT", personal rapid transit, like <a href="http://www.skytran.net/" title="skytran.net">SkyTran</a> [skytran.net].  With modern computer technology, we don't need an obsolete mass-transit system that takes lots of people from point A to point B; we can now make a system that takes individuals anywhere they want to go in a grid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA is too spread out for traditional mass-transit systems to work very well here , except in a very few exceptional places with high density , like NYC , SanFran , etc.The best solution to mass-transit in the USA is " PRT " , personal rapid transit , like SkyTran [ skytran.net ] .
With modern computer technology , we do n't need an obsolete mass-transit system that takes lots of people from point A to point B ; we can now make a system that takes individuals anywhere they want to go in a grid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA is too spread out for traditional mass-transit systems to work very well here, except in a very few exceptional places with high density, like NYC, SanFran, etc.The best solution to mass-transit in the USA is "PRT", personal rapid transit, like SkyTran [skytran.net].
With modern computer technology, we don't need an obsolete mass-transit system that takes lots of people from point A to point B; we can now make a system that takes individuals anywhere they want to go in a grid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044</id>
	<title>Dear AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1259576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear AT&amp;T,</p><p>The only way to fix your problems is to upgrade your network.  Stop trying to punish users.  Stop neglecting your network.  Stop paying Luke Wilson to beat up strawmen on TV.</p><p>If you don't get your shit together, I will be switching over to Verizon's Droid when my iPhone's contract is up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear AT&amp;T,The only way to fix your problems is to upgrade your network .
Stop trying to punish users .
Stop neglecting your network .
Stop paying Luke Wilson to beat up strawmen on TV.If you do n't get your shit together , I will be switching over to Verizon 's Droid when my iPhone 's contract is up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear AT&amp;T,The only way to fix your problems is to upgrade your network.
Stop trying to punish users.
Stop neglecting your network.
Stop paying Luke Wilson to beat up strawmen on TV.If you don't get your shit together, I will be switching over to Verizon's Droid when my iPhone's contract is up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30389450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30390346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30386108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30396316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30386908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2028245_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30397532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381658
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383858
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30389450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381492
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381680
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382104
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382768
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384748
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381732
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382634
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383472
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30386908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30390346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30396316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30386108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30384978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30380978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30385854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2028245.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30382180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30383426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2028245.30381636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
